[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading

[mgmonza]

Joseph Tate wrote:
> So to take devil's advocate here for a minute, besides the "80%
> access" rule -- which I think should be made 99% or even 100% because
> 80% is a cop out to the 80-20 rule -- and the "the cost of the capital
> component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to
> private communications service providers in the same locality" --
> which I think shouldn't have to be linked to the credit ratings of
> commercial enterprise -- what's wrong with this bill*?  And why
> shouldn't it be extended to cover other existing utilities?  It states
> that the local run infrastructure should have to remit the same sorts
> of fees and taxes that a private enterprise would have to in operating
> the infrastructure to the local coffers.  And therefore the locally
> provided "utility" can't use it's position of government to unfairly
> compete with private enterprise.  How is this construed as "Time
> Warner et al are trying to block municipally owned internet".  Which
> items in particular are the "blocking" passages?
>
> Joseph
>
> * full text of the bill here:
> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H1252v2.html
> it only takes a few minutes to read.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:46 PM, mgmonza <mgmonza at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I hadn't seen this mentioned yet.  Time Warner et al are trying to block
>> municipally owned internet:
>>
>> http://www.techjournalsouth.com/news/article.html?item_id=7334
>>
>>
>> H/T to an anonymous BBS poster.
>> --
>> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

The bill is imposing conditions that the private monopolies consider 
"equal" for markets in which they are monopolies and for which they 
explicitly refused to provide services.  It uses the language of free 
market competition and fairness in what the bill itself recognizes is a 
restricted market.  Certain services, such as railroads in the past,  
and telephones and electric companies in the present, have such high 
initial capital costs that once a company gains dominance, those costs 
prevent any real competition.  That's why the U.S. has regulated 
monopolies.  Left to themselves, such companies would tend towards the 
behavior of true monopolies:  to maximize profits before any other 
consideration.


Once a monopoly uses its unfair market dominance to deny services or 
products that a market wants, it's lost any right to the justification 
behind this bill.  Truly equal competition would allow another provider 
to come in when TW and Embarq refused to.  But cable is like telephone 
lines and railroad tracks:  it's not the kind of thing your average 
entrepreneur can just capitalize and jump into when market conditions 
look favorable.  Also like railroad tracks, telephone lines and power 
lines, it's probably not feasible to have duplicates of these running 
everywhere. 


And unlike the regulated utilities, internet access has yet to be 
recognized as a necessary service by the regulatory commissions   That 
another loophole TW and Embarq are working for all it's worth.


In this bill, the same businesses that decided it wasn't worth it to 
provide a service consumers wanted, also want to keep that market locked 
up should they at some future date decide to step in.  The cable 
companies are once again using their freedom from regulation to behave 
like the monopolies they in fact are. 


MG