[ARS] FCC to vote on measure that allows incumbent telcos to let copper lines "rot"...

[Jhhnn]

Considering water and electricity are provided to rural areas in almost the exact same way as telephone service and all three are basic utilities, no I don't think I was being hyperbolic.

No one could afford utility access in rural areas without these laws. But almost all of our food and non-imported raw materials come from those areas. Therefore there are benefits to society of letting and helping people live there.

I see it as civic pride. I want to live in a country where everybody can share some of the good things in life. You know, one of those eevil new deal soshulist types. If I have to pay a little more to help that happen, it's OK. I figure it's not all about me.

 

[ch33zw1z]

im buying pigeons, gonna start the pmail biz

 

[Puffnstuff]

Please. It's still dialup or satellite internet out there some places in the hinterlands. You know, them copper wire thingies. The high latency of satellite service is lousy for VOIP.

I suppose you have to be business oriented to see the sarcasm in my statement.

The days of Hugh's being the only game in town are over with their overpriced and under performing service with mandatory 24hr throttling after a 200mb continuous download. My concern lies with if the GOP gets their way some ISP's will be able to gain more control over services available for given areas which will raise costs as competition is eliminated. Clear has a large coverage map and provides service on the Sprint WiMax network for reasonable prices.

As for the old two wire based services AT&T is laying down fiber in many areas rendering copper based data obsolete so if the bill is written correctly it won't have a negative impact on people.

 

[Puffnstuff]

im buying pigeons, gonna start the pmail biz

Attach data packets to bird droppings for lossless transfer of information?

 

[Jhhnn]

if the bill is written correctly it won't have a negative impact on people.

What part of "Republicans" do you not understand?

 

[brycejones]

im buying pigeons, gonna start the pmail biz

Careful Trump might think its something else...

 

[Zorba]

Careful Trump might think its something else...

I could actually see him being into birds

 

[realibrad]

Considering water and electricity are provided to rural areas in almost the exact same way as telephone service and all three are basic utilities, no I don't think I was being hyperbolic.

No one could afford utility access in rural areas without these laws. But almost all of our food and non-imported raw materials come from those areas. Therefore there are benefits to society of letting and helping people live there.

Oh no, not hyperbolic at all. I do recall all of the deaths during summer when heat waves come and there is no internet in farm country. Won't someone think of the children?

 

[realibrad]

That's a very good question, and the real answer is, Wall Street is a bunch of f'ed up money-grubbing high-maintenance losers.

Edit: What I really meant by that, in a less childish way of speaking, I suppose, is that it seems that most of the entrenched Wall Street-types, are basically fueled by Greed, and have mostly lost their Humanity, and lost care for their fellow person. I believe in doing what's best, if possible, for the whole picture.

I mean, those that want the highest short-term gain, mostly turn to crime, and I think there's a fine line sometimes between street criminals and Wall Street-types. Just my biased opinion.

On the other hand, those people that are CEOs at major companies, if they are any good, are pretty serious leaders, as well as potential risk-takers. Which are positive traits.

For my example, Verizon introduced Fiber-To-The-Home a few years back, they called it FIOS.

The CEO changed, the new CEO *halted expansion* of FIOS. Not because it wasn't making money, it was. It was that it wasn't making a HUGE ENOUGH PROFIT IMMEDIATELY TO SATISFY WALL STREET.

Wall Street, in case you hadn't guessed, does NOT "support" Main Street (rural America), in any way shape or form. The do not support infrastructure. All they care about is profits, and not just that, but HUGE profits. Immediately, so that they can cash out.

Only more recently, has FIOS expansion been happening again, and now finally, Boston is getting FIOS, and parts of NYC that were supposed to be served before, but weren't.

Edit: These delays in infrastructure-building, when shown on a balance sheet, really don't account for the very real HUMAN COST of delaying their introduction. This is lives we're talking about. Not life-and-death, generally (although it may get to that if the telcos get to abandon copper without "reliable replacements" being required by law), but a very real and measurable quality-of-life issue. Kind of like being stuck without an air conditioner in summertime. Depending on the climate, you'll most likely survive, but it's going to be... unpleasant.

Edit: I haven't run the numbers, but I feel that FIOS could, potentially be a money maker in rural America. Maybe. But OTOH, if everyone is eventually moved to fiber, then they're going to have to do it eventually anyways, right?

Edit: And if it's truly not profitable, at all, then that's why we have the sorts of social welfare programs that we do, in the form of the Universal Service Fund.

Though, if some successful Mesh Networking project takes off, then I can see plenty of rural folks buying their own little slice 'o the 'net, and powering it up, and together, they can form their own network, that ties into the greater phone and internet networks at the edges, where possible and commercially feasible. (I posted a link to just such a thing happening, in the other FCC "network neutrality" thread here.)

Maybe I shouldn't get sucked into P&N posting, on the eve of my Mod appointment. I just saw that news article about this vote, thought that it was timely, remembered that P&N required a comment about the link, and not just a link, and then I felt the need to defend my position when questioned.

I think that I'm going to bow out, and just say that, pure unadulterated greed, is NOT the solution to the world's problems. The "invisible hand", needs to remember to NOT cause pain, in doing what it's doing.

Rural America is filled with people that given the chance would be just as greedy. Greed is traditionally constrained by the market forces of people not buying a product if there is something better/cheaper. What we have now is literally breaking the market for the "good" of the people. The reality is that its only good for a very small group. Google tried to break the beast of monopolies but found it was just not worth it. They are now trying to do wireless to not have to deal with cities.

The real issue is the local governments that are willing to play the game to get a few extra dollars. Open up markets and you will see huge shifts in coverage and speed.

 

[realibrad]

So you think people who live in rural areas don't already pay more than those living in cities for the same goods and services?

I've got news for you....the only thing that's cheaper in rural areas is housing. Everything else is more expensive. Food, gas, internet, damned near everything you can name is more expensive. Fewer choices where to buy leads to higher prices...less competition.

So the notion that rural areas don't pay more is just dead wrong.

I never said they don't pay more. They simply do not pay enough. Having lived in rural cities for the majority of my childhood I know how things were. I can also say that many times there are things that rural people simply do not pay the full cost of. Just because you pay a little more does not mean you are paying the full cost.

If rural people were paying the cost to build out into their area, then explain to me why greedy companies are not trying to get a few extra dollars? If there is profit to be made, then why would those greedy people not want it? You cant say that they pay for everything, and then say that greedy people do not want their money.

 

[realibrad]

If I'm not mistaken they actually are going after the USF, but get this, they claim its because of "massive corruption" that they have not documented. There were a handful of instances, but those were addressed by the previous FCC administration if I remember correctly. I might be mistaken that they're actually saying anything about the USF itself, but they're targeting the programs it paid for. And it was one of the ways that Republicans screamed how the Net Neutrality was Obamacare of the Internet.

Ars has had a bunch of articles on this stuff. I'm guessing you can find links to other stories in the article in the OP (and can branch out from there).



Because its more profitable to take the money and not actually do it? Plus, they can get more profits by pushing people to cellular data, where they can charge more. Plus they're under less requirements for providing service under cellular because its ruled as a different service (they're supposed to be required to maintain the copper lines for phone for emergencies).

As others stated, they were paid and given monopoly access specifically to not do what they're now doing. We've paid for that copper multiple times over. They should remit it to the government (best would be the local/county) and let them decide what to do with it. But ISPs are trying to make that illegal, because it would harm their ability to screw people over, and would likely lead to a movement of municipal/government involvement that would massively undermine what they've been doing, which is to try to reach similar stranglehold that old Ma Bell AT&T had before the government broke them up.

I think you are missing something here. The ISPs are signing contracts with local governments that had deals to expand into rural areas. Right now fiber and other non copper lines are far more expensive to install and maintain. If the copper lines are starting to age then the current law is that they must replace it with equal or better. Doing so would mean that the companies would lose money and never be able to make it back without raising prices. In that case, the company would be spending money on investing it could not make back. If it were profitable then what company would not be willing to do it?

Local governments signed a deal, not the federal government.

 

[Zorba]

Oh no, not hyperbolic at all. I do recall all of the deaths during summer when heat waves come and there is no internet in farm country. Won't someone think of the children?

Yeah, hard to call for an ambulance without phone service. Not to mention that it is hard to run a business, call the sheriff, etc.

But people lived for thousands of years without power and county water, so I don't understand why you are for forcing companies to provide universal connective there, but against it for basic phone service. Especially considering phone service made it out to countryside long before air conditioning.

Unless you just want to completely deny reality, though, the US has treated all three as basic utilities for ~80 years. Why is it now okay to pull that coverage away? Anything besides greed?

 

[theeedude]

Should living in a rural area and having access to modern communications be a right? I don't see why liberal urban residents for whom the cost of infrastructure per capita is much lower due to population density should be forced to subsidize internet for conservative rural folk, who will then use that subsidized internet connection to sit on the forums and lecture us about free markets. I would rather these companies spend money delivering fiber optic cables to urban residents than maintaining copper lines to the boonies.

 

[Zorba]

Rural America is filled with people that given the chance would be just as greedy. Greed is traditionally constrained by the market forces of people not buying a product if there is something better/cheaper. What we have now is literally breaking the market for the "good" of the people. The reality is that its only good for a very small group. Google tried to break the beast of monopolies but found it was just not worth it. They are now trying to do wireless to not have to deal with cities.

The real issue is the local governments that are willing to play the game to get a few extra dollars. Open up markets and you will see huge shifts in coverage and speed.

Google didn't kill fiber because cities were hard to deal with... I'll give you a hint, it was the companies that paid to put in all the infrastructure google wanted access to that gave them a lot of trouble. Not to mention the costs of building out are very high. If only government would've gotten their hands out of utilities the telecoms could've made sure google had zero access to any easement or pole.

 

[Zorba]

Should living in a rural area and having access to modern communications be a right? I don't see why liberal urban residents for whom the cost of infrastructure per capita is much lower due to population density should be forced to subsidize internet for conservative rural folk, who will then use that subsidized internet connection to sit on the forums and lecture us about free markets. I would rather these companies spend money delivering fiber optic cables to urban residents than maintaining copper lines to the boonies.

Yeah, because the only thing copper phone lines in the sticks are used for is high speed internet. Never mind they were installed 60 years before DSL was invented.

 

[theeedude]

Do you think urban residents for whom incremental cost of connection is just running a few yards of cable to the junction box, should have to pay for much more expensive miles long phone lines to rural residents?

 

[bradly1101]

I objected to your post because you were asking if I was willing to cut off water and electricity. I mean really, did you think you were not being hyperbolic?

I think governments tinkering with markets usually ends badly. Giving companies monopoly power and then giving them kick backs helps a very small few vs the overall cost of the many. Rural areas have for a long time gotten far more out of the government than they put in. It also turns out that most of those areas are squarely R. If people want to have the convenience of modern things then they need to help pay for them. If you want to live in a place where there is very little population (I will some day when I retire) then you should have to pay a little more for things. Not as a tax on your choice, but because things cost more to reach you.

I seen very little if any overall benefit to society under the current structure.

I've never felt more different than another Brad.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I think you are missing something here. The ISPs are signing contracts with local governments that had deals to expand into rural areas. Right now fiber and other non copper lines are far more expensive to install and maintain. If the copper lines are starting to age then the current law is that they must replace it with equal or better. Doing so would mean that the companies would lose money and never be able to make it back without raising prices. In that case, the company would be spending money on investing it could not make back. If it were profitable then what company would not be willing to do it?

Local governments signed a deal, not the federal government.

No, pretty sure you're the one missing something.

Yes, I'm aware of how the infrastructure came about.

So, just maintain the copper?

100% bullshit. The deals they worked specifically enabled them to be able to afford to maintain and even upgrade in the future. Saying it couldn't be profitable is flat out wrong. If that was the case it would not have worked in the first place. Its not like their profit margins have fallen whilst their costs have gone up. In fact the total opposite is true, their profits have skyrocketed while their costs have massively dropped (and that would be true even if they had actually continued to maintain the copper lines properly, which they weren't). Even fiber now is quite cheap and they could put off a full rollout for quite a while longer by just doing nodes and using the copper lines from there. But then that would require them maintaining the copper lines, like they were supposed to in the first place.

Are you an alien or something? Or are you like 12? Because you clearly have never dealt with a telco if you think raising prices would be an issue for them. Considering that it would probably cost less than their regular price increases (that happen for no reason) or various fees that they tack on (and have even admitted on occasion how that's just to pad their profits and not an actual fee that they have to charge), I think most people would be fine with the price increase if they actually followed through. There's good reasons why these companies are regularly some of, if not the most, hated companies.

Its not a matter of finding companies willing to do it. There's lots of companies that would love to be able to roll out fiber and/or other setups. They largely can't because of the deals cities worked with telcos. Or because telcos paid politicians to pass laws explicitly banning that. So, its a matter of making the ones that were already paid and agreed to do it, actually do it.

No clue what you're meaning with that last statement, as I don't know what its in response to or why you think its pertinent. The FCC was literally created to regulate and oversee stuff like that. The federal government has subsidized these companies too.

To put it bluntly, sorry, but even in the way you're trying to argue your point, its just plain wrong and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But, it gets worse.

So, about that whole, it costs too much to upgrade the copper lines. Um, yeah, the thing is...we've already been fucking paying them to upgrade the copper to fiber:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/you-have-been-charged-tho_b_6306360.html

They've taken the money but didn't fucking do it. Now they're bitching that they should get to let copper go to shit because it would cost them too much money to go fiber? Doesn't that sound fucked up to you?

Oh and it gets better, they also used that situation to get politicians to push through the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has brought a whole host of problems, and not only didn't actually do what it was sold as supposed to be doing, it actually pretty much worked to let the complete opposite happen. Instead of more competition, we've seen less, and the consolidation is even now across multiple markets.

 

[Puffnstuff]

What part of "Republicans" do you not understand?

What part of my comment on laissez-faire do you not understand?

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you think urban residents for whom incremental cost of connection is just running a few yards of cable to the junction box, should have to pay for much more expensive miles long phone lines to rural residents?

The simple fact that there are so many more urban folk than rural people means that the cost of helping them have what we have is extremely small per urban dweller.

We really don't need to give rural America any more reason to feel alienated from the rest of us than they already do.

I really don't care what the telcos need to do to prevent degraded service for anybody. That's the bottom line.

 

[theeedude]

I don't want to pay more to make it cheaper for Trump Trash to read fake news. They are fleecing us in California enough already.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't want to pay more to make it cheaper for Trump Trash to read fake news. They are fleecing us in California enough already.

Buying in to the whole FYGM mentality, huh? Us vs Them? You might be a Republican someday.

 

[theeedude]

Buying in to the whole FYGM mentality, huh? Us vs Them? You might be a Republican someday.

Republicanism is a failed ideology. But Republicans should be forced to live with it, which means free market should decide if they are worth the hassle selling phone service to.

 

[realibrad]

Google didn't kill fiber because cities were hard to deal with... I'll give you a hint, it was the companies that paid to put in all the infrastructure google wanted access to that gave them a lot of trouble. Not to mention the costs of building out are very high. If only government would've gotten their hands out of utilities the telecoms could've made sure google had zero access to any easement or pole.

As far as I know, google was only sharing the poles, and not the isp's existing infrastructure. Do you have anything to back up your claim?

 

[realibrad]

No, pretty sure you're the one missing something.

Yes, I'm aware of how the infrastructure came about.

So, just maintain the copper?

100% bullshit. The deals they worked specifically enabled them to be able to afford to maintain and even upgrade in the future. Saying it couldn't be profitable is flat out wrong. If that was the case it would not have worked in the first place. Its not like their profit margins have fallen whilst their costs have gone up. In fact the total opposite is true, their profits have skyrocketed while their costs have massively dropped (and that would be true even if they had actually continued to maintain the copper lines properly, which they weren't). Even fiber now is quite cheap and they could put off a full rollout for quite a while longer by just doing nodes and using the copper lines from there. But then that would require them maintaining the copper lines, like they were supposed to in the first place.

Are you an alien or something? Or are you like 12? Because you clearly have never dealt with a telco if you think raising prices would be an issue for them. Considering that it would probably cost less than their regular price increases (that happen for no reason) or various fees that they tack on (and have even admitted on occasion how that's just to pad their profits and not an actual fee that they have to charge), I think most people would be fine with the price increase if they actually followed through. There's good reasons why these companies are regularly some of, if not the most, hated companies.

Its not a matter of finding companies willing to do it. There's lots of companies that would love to be able to roll out fiber and/or other setups. They largely can't because of the deals cities worked with telcos. Or because telcos paid politicians to pass laws explicitly banning that. So, its a matter of making the ones that were already paid and agreed to do it, actually do it.

No clue what you're meaning with that last statement, as I don't know what its in response to or why you think its pertinent. The FCC was literally created to regulate and oversee stuff like that. The federal government has subsidized these companies too.

To put it bluntly, sorry, but even in the way you're trying to argue your point, its just plain wrong and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But, it gets worse.

So, about that whole, it costs too much to upgrade the copper lines. Um, yeah, the thing is...we've already been fucking paying them to upgrade the copper to fiber:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/you-have-been-charged-tho_b_6306360.html

They've taken the money but didn't fucking do it. Now they're bitching that they should get to let copper go to shit because it would cost them too much money to go fiber? Doesn't that sound fucked up to you?

Oh and it gets better, they also used that situation to get politicians to push through the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has brought a whole host of problems, and not only didn't actually do what it was sold as supposed to be doing, it actually pretty much worked to let the complete opposite happen. Instead of more competition, we've seen less, and the consolidation is even now across multiple markets.

Again, if companies could make money doing it, then why wont they do it?

Next, the federal regulation is not a contract dummy. The FCC regulates.

Your stance is literally that these companies could make money but are choosing not to. I am asking you why they would not want to make more money.

My position is that because local governments sign deals that distort the market, we get slower/shit service. If others were allowed to come in and lay new copper lines in rural areas then things would change.