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

[theeedude]

I am sure phone companies are lining up to put down miles of phone lines to service rural Trump Trash. There is gold in them there hills.

 

[darkswordsman17]

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?

The poles are part of the infrastructure. Google was putting their own line, but they still had to work with the companies that had the poles' rights.

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.

I covered this for you twice already. Only reason I'm bothering with a third is because I'm hoping that it might help other people understand, as I have a hunch that you're being willfully ignorant.

Because right now only the companies that own the lines can do anything about it and they want to push people to other services that they provide that are higher profit and have less regulation. In other words, they can make more money by not spending money to maintain the lines, while it also will force people to use their cellular service that gets the company more money.

Um, ok? Not sure where you're getting that I said that. You're clearly having a problem with comprehension. I'm not sure why you can't seem to understand that the FCC's regulation of the deals is what enabled them to happen in the first place, and was there to make these companies adhere to them. The FCC has authority over this, and they had a regulation requiring the telcos to maintain or upgrade the lines in exchange for being allowed to work the anti-competitive deals. I also dispute your claim that the federal government has a vested interest in this though, as they have money involved as well, and the FCC was the one that ok'ed various charges that these companies have gotten to put on bills, like specifically in order to upgrade service for schools and do fiber rollouts.

No its not. Again, they have been doing what they've been doing because they got to make the money while also not actually doing what they were supposed to do (maintain the copper lines). Plus, yes, they want to make more money, and they do that by getting out of having to maintain or upgrade the lines and push people to cellular. I'm really not sure why you're struggling to understand this. You even said it yourself, they don't want to maintain or upgrade the lines because it costs them money. The problem is you're ignoring that they already received and continue to receive money specifically to do that.

Your position is, I guess right (I hesitate to agree, as you are woefully misunderstanding the actual situation), but you're somehow completely missing basic understanding of the facts. Yes, we get slow/shit service by giving private companies who are only trying to maximize their profits monopoly rights. I assume you see that by your "distort the market" comment. Absolutely, that would be true (if we could pay other companies to do that, as seen by the places that did - usually because the telcos refused to rollout service to them). But again, those companies often cannot do that because of the deals worked with the telcos. The telcos also have fought efforts to try to get out of the deals even when they weren't holding up their end, and now are working to be able to not even be held accountable for them (which is what the article in the OP is about). They've literally been getting politicians to write laws restricting local governments from being able to get other companies to do it even. And they've been working to get the FCC to enable them as well. Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, and there's been a major problem with telcos putting in their people in at the FCC, as they often are blatantly favoring the corporations over the American people.

Here's an article about the state laws restricting local governments:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

 

[VirtualLarry]

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.

Because, if they were making "more money" but not "the appropriate amount of money - according to wall street", then their stock would tank, and they would get bought out in a few years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I am sure phone companies are lining up to put down miles of phone lines to service rural Trump Trash. There is gold in them there hills.

You might be right. I was reading a NYTimes article, about a company that handles "gig jobs" for phone reps. Instead of outsourcing to India, etc., some companies are actually turning to what amounts to an "Uber for call centers", that then contracts out with independent contractors (many working right from home, using an internet/phone connection) to do the customer-service job.

That's worth $$$ to the company paying this company to pay those ICs. So yes, there is value in keeping rural America wired up to our communication grids, because they can answer the phones with questions from everyone else working in the city that "doesn't have time to answer the phones".

 

[theeedude]

You might be right. I was reading a NYTimes article, about a company that handles "gig jobs" for phone reps. Instead of outsourcing to India, etc., some companies are actually turning to what amounts to an "Uber for call centers", that then contracts out with independent contractors (many working right from home, using an internet/phone connection) to do the customer-service job.

That's worth $$$ to the company paying this company to pay those ICs. So yes, there is value in keeping rural America wired up to our communication grids, because they can answer the phones with questions from everyone else working in the city that "doesn't have time to answer the phones".

If there is value in country bumpkins having phones, free market will pay for it. No need to force urban residents to.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If there is value in country bumpkins having phones, free market will pay for it. No need to force urban residents to.

To be sure, we're not talking about wiring up a copper phone network in rural Alaska for the first time. We're talking about (potentially rural, although NJ isn't that rural) people that WERE served by the telco, so yes, the free-market DID make it sensible to wire them up, but SLEAZY TELCOS AND THEIR LOBBIESTS, want to be allowed to ABANDON that copper plant, rather than MAINTAINING it, even though THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS in funding to upgrade those areas to fiber, ALREADY.

So, free-market this and that - if they had agreements in place with gov't, shouldn't they be force to perform according to those agreements? If not, the gov't should take over those companies, and then provide the service, directly tax-payer funded, IMHO. Universal service (of communication) should be a mandate of our Republic.

Edit: After all, these telcos WERE CREATED at the gov'ts behest, to MANAGE AND UPKEEP the phone system, and if they fail in their duty, then they should be nationalized, IMHO.

 

[theeedude]

Telcos are there to make money for shareholders, not fulfill a government function. Rural customers cost more than they are willing to pay.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Telcos are there to make money for shareholders, not fulfill a government function.

I think that you are mistaken. Look up "Regulated Telco Monopoly", and then tell me the reasoning behind it? Is there no reason why localities don't have five or ten competing wireline telcos and cable companies? Or could there be a reasoning behind the lack of competeition, which comes with some responsibilities to those granting the monopoly (the gov't... of the people).

Edit: The gov't granted a monopoly to these companies, to be stewards of the phone system, and allowing them to make a specific amount of profit by doing so.

Now these monopoly providers, want to break free from their gov'tal shackles, and act as an Un-regulated monopoly, on the free market, and wreak havoc with our shared communications infrastructure, for private profit purposes.

And you're OK with that? I dare say, you are espousing a very Scrooge-like FYGM attitude that most Republicans have, along with seemingly not caring if our nationwide communication infrastructure falls apart, like some Banana Republic.

 

[theeedude]

Remove the monopoly, let these companies decide if they want to serve rural locations. There is no benefit to me as an urban consumer from
- Telco monopolies that limit my choice and increase my prices
- Paying for expensive rural residents as part of my bill
Also, rural areas are primarily Republicans who are the ones espousing THEY want free markets to take care of them and less regulation. So it's not my FYGM, but their FMGY. I am all for giving them what they voted for.

 

[Zorba]

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?

What do you think the poles are? The other companies were making it hard to use their poles and easements. It wasn't the cities being difficult. But keep moving the field goals on every response.

 

[theeedude]

Hopefully 5G will get around the pole issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that you are mistaken. Look up "Regulated Telco Monopoly", and then tell me the reasoning behind it? Is there no reason why localities don't have five or ten competing wireline telcos and cable companies? Or could there be a reasoning behind the lack of competeition, which comes with some responsibilities to those granting the monopoly (the gov't... of the people).

Edit: The gov't granted a monopoly to these companies, to be stewards of the phone system, and allowing them to make a specific amount of profit by doing so.

Now these monopoly providers, want to break free from their gov'tal shackles, and act as an Un-regulated monopoly, on the free market, and wreak havoc with our shared communications infrastructure, for private profit purposes.

And you're OK with that? I dare say, you are espousing a very Scrooge-like FYGM attitude that most Republicans have, along with seemingly not caring if our nationwide communication infrastructure falls apart, like some Banana Republic.

Thank you. Just imagine how much more unequal we could become if we extended the whole Us vs Them mentality to electricity, drinking water & sanitation. We could create some real shitholes, huh?

 

[theeedude]

Thank you. Just imagine how much more unequal we could become if we extended the whole Us vs Them mentality to electricity, drinking water & sanitation. We could create some real shitholes, huh?

If they vote for free market solutions, why not let them have it? If they don't create sufficient economic value in a rural area to pay for the higher cost of services there, the right answer is for them to move elsewhere, not to impose the costs on society.

 

[NL5]

As someone who is only serviced by copper telco lines, I can tell you that it's not just "rural" folks that are affected. Telcos were granted monopoly status, and part of that agreement is that they must serve all customers in their jurisdiction. Rural folks pay a lot more to get hooked up when a property is developed, so they do pick up a lot of the extra cost. Deregulation has never proven to work for utilities. Its not a perfect system, but it's better than the alternative.

Edit - as a side note, I did not vote for the Russian puppet, nor anyone else from his party in the last election.

 

[theeedude]

So you are OK forcing people in high density areas into a monopoly telcos if it is for the purpose of subsidizing low density area subscribers?

 

[Jhhnn]

If they vote for free market solutions, why not let them have it? If they don't create sufficient economic value in a rural area to pay for the higher cost of services there, the right answer is for them to move elsewhere, not to impose the costs on society.

Spoken like a member of the Job Creator class. We could say the same thing about the ACA & hospitals in smaller towns. About roads. About the very fabric of America.

 

[theeedude]

Spoken like a member of the Job Creator class. We could say the same thing about the ACA & hospitals in smaller towns. About roads. About the very fabric of America.

I am Job Destroyer class. We do say same thing about hospitals closing in states that blocked Medicaid expansion. That's what they voted for. Roads are a local issue. Fabric of America is not in the countryside. If anything it's bitter country folks who are destroying that fabric.

 

[NL5]

So you are OK forcing people in high density areas into a monopoly telcos if it is for the purpose of subsidizing low density area subscribers?

As I said above, it's better than the alternative. Like jhhnn said, it works this way for a lot of things. I pay way more properly taxes than most which subsidizes lesser properties who use as much or more county services. There are things in society that must work this way, or society itself wouldn't work. Do you think your utilities would be cheaper if every single company providing service would have to have their own infrastructure?

 

[theeedude]

As I said above, it's better than the alternative. Like jhhnn said, it works this way for a lot of things. I pay way more properly taxes than most which subsidizes lesser properties who use as much or more county services. There are things in society that must work this way, or society itself wouldn't work. Do you think your utilities would be cheaper if every single company providing service would have to have their own infrastructure?

It may be cheaper for many people, due to competition. Worst case would be consolidation leading to a monopoly. But what we have now is monopoly being the starting point and mandated by the government just in order to force one group of people to subsidize another. We'll see how it plays out with 5G and beyond wireless. You can have a death spiral where profitable urban customers are cherry picked by wireless providers who can service them with a few towers, while leaving fixed landline telcos with expensive unprofitable rural customers.

 

[Zorba]

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

If @senseamp would've been born in Alabama he'd be a hard core republican. He definitely has the FYGM mentality down.

 

[Zorba]

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?

I thought that was obvious from my posts. Yes, I believe in universal coverage, even if that means I have to pay a tiny bit more in taxes and cost. I'd support the same for high speed internet as well. I understand the United State needs people in the rural areas, making it a collective problem.

Should the people that live in the rural areas that live off gravel roads have to pay the same transportation taxes as urban people to put more highways into the cities? Because currently, they do.

 

[Zorba]

So you are OK forcing people in high density areas into a monopoly telcos if it is for the purpose of subsidizing low density area subscribers?

That is not the only reason for utility monopolies. Do you really think power in LA would be cheaper if there were 15 different sets of powerlines running through every neighborhood? No company could afford to compete and they would all raise their prices considering instead of 100% of people paying for their infrastructure they now have 7% of the people paying for their infrastructure.

Please provide any case study that shows deregulation improved cost of an utility.

Utility infrastructure is insanely expensive, even in cities. Further, every time the state expands a road, they have to pay to move all that infrastructure, so having 15 sets of it would basically make road work in cities cost prohibitive.

 

[crashtech]

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.

I find it interesting that some posters here who would normally support the idea that as citizens, we all share the cost of vital infrastructure, somehow go all pure laissez-faire capitalist when they think by doing so they can screw over some of their political opponents. Very disturbing, and emblematic of just how far we've fallen as a nation.

Typically I am somewhat right of center in many of my views, but I've always used infrastructure as an example to help illustrate to some of my simpler-minded conservative acquaintances how we do, as a matter of fact, embrace certain aspects of socialism, so this topic has a special irony for me.

 

[theeedude]

That is not the only reason for utility monopolies. Do you really think power in LA would be cheaper if there were 15 different sets of powerlines running through every neighborhood? No company could afford to compete and they would all raise their prices considering instead of 100% of people paying for their infrastructure they now have 7% of the people paying for their infrastructure.

Please provide any case study that shows deregulation improved cost of an utility.

Utility infrastructure is insanely expensive, even in cities. Further, every time the state expands a road, they have to pay to move all that infrastructure, so having 15 sets of it would basically make road work in cities cost prohibitive.

Tokyo has two overlapping subway systems. Life goes on. There aren't 15.

 

[theeedude]

If @senseamp would've been born in Alabama he'd be a hard core republican. He definitely has the FYGM mentality down.

It's not F.Y.Got.Mine. if that's what they voted for and I am for giving it to them. It's F.Y.Get.Yours.