Verizon Sells Off Wireline Operations, Blames Net Neutrality Plans 214
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Verizon Communications will sell its local wireline operations in California, Florida and Texas for $10.5 billion, citing uncertainty around federal Internet regulation as one reason for the move, although Verizon executives said the sale has been in the works for several years. It's no secret that local wireline phone service has been a shrinking industry, and Verizon and other carriers see mobile as their greatest growth opportunity. Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam cited the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming net neutrality proposal as another potential threat to the growth of wired services. 'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'"
F(ck them. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just an excuse.
Re:F(ck them. (Score:5, Insightful)
convenient one at that.. considering the deal was likely in the works long before there was even a hint of the threat of internet regulation.
the real reason: verizon has huge debt and just committed to spending bazillions more on new wireless spectrum and they need some way to pay down some of that new debt.
Re:F(ck them. (Score:5, Informative)
Verizon has been trying to shed their wireline service for years. They have done a few here and there, using Reverse Morris Trust (basically a way to fuck the company buying VZ's assets, and the constituents... Frontiernet has screwed up everything they have touched)
The timing just coincides with the FCC ruling, and a great opportunity for VZ to talk out of it's collective ass
Re: (Score:2)
Where I am in Oregon, they sold the Fios business to Frontier years ago, long before net neutrality was mentioned. This is not a new thing.
I don't have a problem with Frontier internet. The Verizon Fios customers should consider themselves lucky that Verizon is dropping them and passing them on to Frontier.
Re:F(ck them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't mess with Netflix either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I moved from Verizon FIOS in the Washington DC area to Frontier FIOS in Redmond.
With Verizon I had to pay extra for the Business FIOS service so they would unblock server ports like HTTP/SMTP. Ostensibly it was worthwhile since I also got better customer service that didn't sound like they were going to step on a puppy if I didn't follow their script. The service would also go down 5 minutes into any power outage, even though my ONT and other equipment had plenty of battery power in reserve.
With Fron
Re: (Score:2)
>They still use the troublesome Actiontec router that Verizon had
You don't have to use that. The bleed through problem with the Actiontec is that it is the reason they're dragging their feet on IPv6. The Actiontec router doesn't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon has been trying to shed their wireline service for years. [...] The timing just coincides with the FCC ruling, and a great opportunity for VZ to talk out of it's collective ass
How does them wanting to shed wireline services for years contradict their assertion that net neutrality laws had an impact on their decision? Net neutrality has been discussed by regulators for at least five years. The earliest ruling I could find was the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, signed into law in December 2010. I'm not sure how long before that these issues have been discussed by regulators, but I assumed it was for many years before 2010.
Even if net neutrality only became an issue recently, it coul
Re: (Score:2)
The earliest ruling I could find was the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, signed into law in December 2010.
The Open Internet Order was not signed into law. The FCC, which is part of the executive branch, created it. Laws, by definition, must come from the legislative branch (the House and the Senate.) Part of the reason that it was struck down is because the courts found that the FCC stepped outside the boundaries of what Congress told the FCC it was allowed to do. It's important to remember that the FCC has a fairly narrow mandate (that the legislative branch is allowed to modify) when Congress tries to reign t
Re: (Score:2)
considering the deal was likely in the works long before there was even a hint of the threat of internet regulation.
There has been the threat of internet regulation since at least the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 which was signed into law in December 2010.
There has been the hint of regulation since at least 2005, when the FCC released a poilicy statement [fcc.gov] establishing four principles of the open internet.
To ensure consistent customer experience (Score:5, Funny)
Our customers expect to get screwed over, and this legislation would put a stop to that for wired service. To ensure consistent customer experience, we must unceremoniously dump our wireline customers.
Re:F(ck them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the fact that someone bought it implies that someone thinks they can run the system profitably.
The worry is that regulation will cause less investment, not no investment. There will always be someone trying to make a buck, but in the case of wired communication we probably want as many companies as possible investing in our infrastructure.
I'm not making an assertion that net nuetrality may or may not hurt investment, I am only claiming that the fact a company was willing to buy the lines from Verizon is not a good indicator that the sale was a good investment for either side. For instance, there were
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the FCC has been dicking around in this area for years which the summary conveniently ignores, almost certainly longer than the deal in question has been in the works, what exactly makes you think they're lying? Also, given that there is not a single entity within the US government that knows just how many laws are currently in force, let alone all of the regulations that stem from those laws, in what universe is the state of things not 'over regulated'?
So, pass the buck to government ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... for your fuckups and lack of revenues?
Gee, here's an idea .. about you stop with the crappy customer service [consumeraffairs.com] .. so you know, you actually can *acquire* customers for the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, there are a LOT of complaints [google.com] about Verizon ...
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-Allocated Blame (Score:2)
They don't want Net Neutrality, so anything and everything bad that happens is going to be down to Net Neutrality.
Trouble in the Ukraine escalates into WW3? Net Neutrality would be to blame. A dinosaur killer asteroid on collision course with Earth? All cause by market instabilities due to Net Neutrality. Osama Bin Laden returns from the dead and starts making more Dr Evil broadcasts? Net Neutrality. That's what you get..
In fact, if the Large Haddock Collider was to collide too many Haddocks at once a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think the government regulate underwear manufacturers? Serious question. I ask to highlight that unlike telecom, underwear manufacturing is not a natural monopoly. Anyone can enter. Anyone can sell any colour and style of underwear. Over any sales channel. Red Jockey briefs don't get a 'fast-lane' to the consumer and blue trunks the slow lane. If a department store puts 'special arrangements' for red briefs, the demand blue trunks is met by another sales channel - another department store, or mail o
Re: (Score:3)
The government is regulating because these utilities plan to do away with business practices (peering, traffic neutrality) that were widely accepted and taken for granted when their respective monopolies were awarded.
Let's hear that again, I think some folks might have missed it.
The government is regulating because these utilities plan to do away with business practices (peering, traffic neutrality) that were widely accepted and taken for granted when their respective monopolies were awarded.
If you still didn't quite get that, allow me to translate: These monopolies intend to re-architect the Internet to suit their profit model, and to prevent others from getting started the way that they did.
Give this AC a cigar. And some upmods.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also the other wrinkle to this whole discussion: Verizon brought this upon themsel
Re: (Score:2)
Lightspeed was terribly careless when it came to dealing with regulation
Yeah, they should have hired at least one attorney or at least one engineer who could tell the MBAs, "No, we can't use internationally-allocated satellite-to-ground spectrum for terrestrial communications."
But it's a lot easier to blame the big bad gubbermint.
Where are their customer service people? (Score:2)
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... (Score:5, Informative)
I have an uncle like you., and it's depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All the taxes placed on a land line to pay for Obama Phone and E911
You sir are as complete brainwashed moron. - smh. The so called "Obama phone" is a program started by reagan
Re: (Score:3)
The program is run by cell phone companies, who get a subsidy from the Federal government for each subsidized subscriber. The name Obamaphone originated with the companies. Some of them decided to call their version of the program "Obamaphone" to imply that their service (and not their competitors') were endorsed by President Obama, who is very popular
AT&T isn't far behind (Score:2)
Trust me when I say other regions are soon to follow. Especially in the regions where they have not ( and have no desire to ) deploy their U-Verse systems.
Re: (Score:2)
The test run was the former SNET region. ( Last year )
If this all means that the new ma bells will be selling off all their landline stuff, I'm all for it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
All the systems have re-united under either AT&T or Verizon. There is a spattering of smaller LEC's, but those two hold the vast majority of system. Why did we break up Bell before? Why in the world did they (regulators) allow these to coalesce?
Re:AT&T isn't far behind (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that they're selling off to bottom feeders like Frontier who will do nothing to improve the copper infrastructure which could still be useful if it were tidied up to achieve VDSL2 speeds.
It's so not fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't they have legal monopolies and abuse their position to compete with Netflix via throttling and charge $100 for a 2 Meg pipe and still be a broadband provider which means no taxes. Wahaha EVIL socialist bastards.
Re:It's so not fair (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why people keep trying to cast these stories as a failure of market capitalism, and socialism to the rescue. The cable and telecom industries in the U.S. are a classic example of a failure of government regulation. The monopolies exist because they were granted by the local governments, which prohibit competition. And many of the problems we see like net non-neutrality would in fact be solved by allowing market competition. If Comcast had had competition and they deliberately degraded Netflix service, they would've bled customers once word got around that Netflix sucked on Comcast but worked great with competing ISPs.
"Socialist" Europe has actually gotten this one right. For the most part they're not trying to control their ISPs with heavy-handed regulations. They're regulating it just enough to maximize competition. i.e. Their ISP is closer to a free market than in the U.S.
Re:It's so not fair (Score:4, Informative)
An actual "Socialist" would want to do something like nationalize all the major telecom companies.
Market Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on the Government acting as arbiter and enforcer of basic rules of fair competition, because that is a core requirement. When Adam Smith was alive, Socialism hadn't even been thought up yet. Instead, you had the government (generally run by a Monarch/Nobility) granting exclusive privileges or outright monopolies to certain individuals or corporations, like giving the East India Company a monopoly on the import of tea.
Sound familiar?
This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue. Nobody's even remotely talking about nationalization.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue.
No, the question here is whether we will let the status quo of government granted monopoly abuse continue, or whether we should move to a new model with MORE government granted monopoly abuse.
Nobody is talking about legitimately deregulating telecommunication franchising at the municipal level. That would result in less monopolization, but God forbid we put that on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was to draw satire of those brainwashed by lobbyists and those who listen to people like Rush Limbaugh.
Since the poor evil government decided on this it is therefore socialism and an attack on freedom!
It is not logical or thought. Just government = bad. Do nothing = good. Socialism = government so therefore bad.
Which is why Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo influence [arstechnica.com] on creating Title II and doing this job as the president. It was him implementing evil communism according the Ver
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo [sic] influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent executive branch agency. In theory, it doesn't exist to do the President's bidding. (When a Republican is in office, the press calls this an indicator of "The Imperial Presidency.") But when an "independent agency" comes up with rules that the President asks for in the press that help his cronies, the other party will raise this concern. This happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo [sic] influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent executive branch agency. In theory, it doesn't exist to do the President's bidding. (When a Republican is in office, the press calls this an indicator of "The Imperial Presidency.") But when an "independent agency" comes up with rules that the President asks for in the press that help his cronies, the other party will raise this concern. This happens all the time.
Is not the president the chief executive of the executive branch of government? In essence he reports to Obama
Translation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our huge profit margins are not maximized under the current plans, and it means we cannot use our government enforced cartels to force other companies to pay us again for services the end users are already paying for.
Therefore we will 'protest' by selling off an area of the business we have been planning to sell of for normal commercial reasons for quite some time, but using our highly paid group of lobbyists and spin doctors, we will make you think this is bad for you, and therefore change the playing field to make us even more profitable, at your expense.
The sad thing is some people will actually fall for this rubbish.
And the sadder thing is it wont matter if you dont fall for it, because 'campaign contributions' mean they get whatever laws they desire anyway, given enough time and no one peaking behind the curtain.
Welcome to the new world.
Re:Translation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore we will 'protest' by selling off an area of the business we have been planning to sell of for normal commercial reasons for quite some time, but using our highly paid group of lobbyists and spin doctors,
Lobbyists and spin doctors?
Any media who reports "Verizon blames net neutrality" is basically falling down on the job.
Journalists and editors are supposed to have some minimal obligation towards reporting the truth.
âoeWashington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,â [Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam] said. âoeThis uncertainty is not good for investment, and itâ(TM)s not good for jobs here in America.â
The sale of the wireline operations has been in the works for several years, Verizon executives said.
Those should not be paragraphs 5 and 6.
Heck, "in the works for several years," should have been the headline.
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of sucks reaching at Rush Limbaugh, but he has declared there is no journalism in the media any more. It is all media narrative reports from media narrative reporters.
Interesting thought though. Even if people do not like the source.
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of sucks reaching at Rush Limbaugh, but he has declared there is no journalism in the media any more. It is all media narrative reports from media narrative reporters.
Well, he would know, since he pretty much invented replacing journalism with BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Akre wanted to run a story solely based on the claims of anti-Monsanto activists. The Fox affiliate she worked for refused to run the story without her attempting to interview someone from Monsanto. She refused, on the theory that Monsanto would just lie to her. After a few rounds of this, the affiliate fired her for insubordination (that is, refusing to interview someone from Monsanto.)
Akre and her anti-Fox allies have been pretending for a decade that since A
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you're right. People don't know what the hell this means. My local news tried to sum it up: net neutrality means your ISO can choose which web pages load quickly and which load slowly. Fail. Some people, myself included, attempted to correct them and educate readers in the comments. However, people quickly adopted a bipartisan, anti-regulation, or general anti-government mentality regarding the issue.
Want to kill net neutrality? Put it in the hands of the people.
Uncertainty (Score:2)
Ever notice how "uncertainty" has come to mean "something we don't want to happen"? Not just net neutrality, it's everywhere. It's like, everything we support will last forever, everything we oppose is uncertain because someday we'll manage rid of it.
Re:Uncertainty (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk of uncertainty is simply PR=B$ to hold up the sales price. They are simply selling the copper network which they have degraded to crap with poor maintenance, other bits are tacked on in order to protect that price. Incumbents all over the world are looking to dump their degraded copper networks with only idiots looking to buy or scams like in Australia where Toxic Tony and crew who strangled the national NBN project to death are going to dump billions of dollars of taxpayer money straight into the pockets of two corporations and their investors by buying a degraded copper network.
Here's betting exactly what the incumbents will do once they dump the copper, install a new fibre to the premise network and burn the suckers who bought the copper with gold. I wonder how many countries governments will be corrupts enough to buy into the same deal being done in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they expect certainty? Certainties in economics don't exist except when you're a monopolist getting rents.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they expect certainty? Certainties in economics don't exist except when you're a monopolist getting rents.
I can't tell whether or not you intentionally answered your own question.
Re: (Score:2)
" and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny... Verizon outsourcing jobs is good for america but this isn't?
"This was all in an effort to cut costs and make larger profits. And profits they’ve made. During the same period of laying off thousands of workers, Verizon made more than $19.7 billion in profits and received a $758 billion federal tax refund."
http://www.goodjobsnow.org/201... [goodjobsnow.org]
Just a chance to threaten america (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon sucks up tax breaks and rebates for building out fios and then tosses it usually to frontier that just barely maintains it. This is how they operate, they hardly ever keep landlines once they are done building in the area and frontier never adds to the network. It is a scam they have ran since they started installing fios as keeping and running the actual network is a not as profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have mods but parent needs to be +5. FIOS was all an elaborate scam to steal from the taxpayer.
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually quite silly. Plans to sell 11 figures worth of business assets ($10,000,000,000) don't happen overnight. This has obviously been years in the making.
In other news.... (Score:2)
The pick play near the end of the Super Bowl caused some guy to die [huffingtonpost.com].
Deals like this don't happen overnight, they can't even get an agreement done within several months.
Re: (Score:2)
The pick play near the end of the Super Bowl caused some guy to die [huffingtonpost.com].
No, TFA you linked to says it didn't cause him to die. In fact, he didn't even watch the game. The family blamed the Seahawks in his obit [legacy.com] as a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the point.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspected it might be, but I didn't see the sacrcasm tag.
Re: (Score:2)
Lynch is not that great near the line.
That can partially be explained by the fact that the Seahawks run out of bunch formations (3 WRs on the same side of the field) more often than most teams in goal to go situations. The better formation to use there is a heavy set. (Tackles reporting eligible, essentially)
It's first down. You have a time out and you have the best RB in the league. You need to move the ball twelve inches. You have to trust your players in that instance.
Good for the "Public" ... (Score:4, Funny)
Verizon Communications will sell its local wireline operations in California, Florida and Texas for $10.5 billion, citing uncertainty around federal Internet regulation as one reason for the move
Fine, if Verizon has a problem with Net Nutrality, perhaps they should not be in the Internet business anyway.
I think their best be is to go the HP route and switch to ink-jet printer ink.
Been there, done that (Score:5, Informative)
This is not new for Verizon at all - they have been shedding their landline and FiOS business for years. Back in 2007 [wikipedia.org] they abandoned Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, selling off the business to FairPoint Communications, a tiny North Carolina company that struggled for years to overcome billing system issues. FairPoint announced then that they would not be expanding the fiber Internet service (FiOS TV never got started here) and the service has been static since then. (On the positive side, my bill hasn't increased since 2007!)
Even in Massachusetts, where Verizon still operates FiOS TV, they announced a couple of years back that they would not expand service to more areas. This tripe about Net Neutrality is just a convenient smokescreen for what they've been planning all along.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, Verizon sold off their North Carolina services to a Connecticut based company (Frontier).
Re: (Score:2)
This is not new for Verizon at all - they have been shedding their landline and FiOS business for years. Back in 2007 [wikipedia.org] they abandoned Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, selling off the business to FairPoint Communications, a tiny North Carolina company that struggled for years to overcome billing system issues.
For people that think that no provider could be worse than Verizon, take a look at customers' opinions of FairPoint.
Use FairPoint, avoid Comcast (Score:3)
Crap, I'm moving to Hudson, NH and my two wired choices are FairPoint or Comcast. Should I really choose Comcast over FairPoint (I only care about Internet, not phone or TV)? FairPoint doesn't have any prices listed anywhere on their website. I really hate businesses like that.
No. Go with Fairpoint and avoid Comcast.
I live in NH (about 3 towns over from Hudson) and have used both. While Fairpoint is annoying, it's manageable and they don't fuck up too badly or very often. If you can manage your own computer configuration you can generally keep them at a distance and just reboot your modem once or twice a week.
Comcast is completely and totally interested in what you do, how you do it, and whether it violates their TOS. They will silently do lots of shit to prevent you from doing t
Re: (Score:2)
I agree 100% with Okian Warrior here - I'd do without rather than buy service from Comcast. I have the FairPoint fiber service that used to be FiOS and it works well, but if it's not already run on your street you'll never get it. For TV go satellite - I use DirecTV.
One, hopefully temporary, hitch is that Fairpoint workers have been on strike for several weeks, slowing down installs and repairs.
Really, FairPoint nowadays isn't a bad company to do business with. They're focused on staying in business and are
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon sold their New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine landlines to FairPoint in a way that had huge tax advantages for Verizon. FairPoint took on so much debt that it went into bankruptcy within a year, as Verizon and FairPoint knew was likely. It's come out of that, but there's currently a strike against it going on several months now which it has been refusing to even negotiate on, preferring to bring in scabs from outside the region. The cause of the strike is that FairPoint wants to lower wages and drasti
What a load of bull.... (Score:5, Informative)
As we've noted, Verizon's been looking to offload its fixed-line assets for years, since the company clearly finds wireless service (and caps and overages) a far-more profitable venture. As such they've spent the last few years actually raising rates and neglecting unwanted customers in the hopes they'll leave to wireless, or leave to companies like Comcast (where they'll then be pitched...you guessed it...Verizon Wireless services as part of a co-marketing arrangement). After massive sales to Frontier and Fairpoint in years past, Verizon this week convinced Frontier to buy all of the company's DSL and FiOS customers in Florida, Texas and California. Amusingly (or not), Verizon is trying to spin the latest deal to pretend they were forced down this path because of net neutrality: ...
Verizon on Net Neutrality (Score:3, Interesting)
'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" It's SO nice to realize that they have their customers' best interests in mind...
I know, I know -- they have to make a profit. But it would be nice if someone would realize that net neutrality is about fairness to the consumer, not about maximizing corporate profits.
Actually this is good and bad (Score:3)
First the Good, Yeah I won't have to deal with their fucked up customer service anymore. Here that Verizon? You suck donkey balls!
The baby bells became too big and with too much consolidation. If they want to take their ball and go home crying fine. Maybe I can now buy my set top boxes because your network is built out now and being sold. I'm tired of paying fucking fees just because "you're building your network out" It's been over 5 years now, let me buy the box or get Tivo without it costing me an arm and a leg.
The Bad, I don't know who this other company is or how it treats its customers but I'll find out. I also can assume that they'll jack up the rates to pay the $10 Billion it'll cost them to buy this infrastructure from VZ. If they don't work out I can always go to TW/Comcast...Oh shit I'm screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry. Frontier looks up to Comcast as a guiding light. You'll feel right at home.
FTFY Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'
'Overpriced unreliable internet is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America'
Sell why they can (Score:2)
Maybe they suspect that Google and Space-X will launch new satellite technology that will make these wired lines obsolete.
If you want certainity (Score:5, Insightful)
Benjamin (Score:2)
internet freedom + Job security => ObFranklin
Spending My Karma: Fuck You Verizon (Score:3)
What's the matter? Can't extort? Aw, poor thing.
Please leave Verizon, tomorrow.
Google (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean everything the 'evil' companies already do but don't give us decent speeds, try to cap our bandwidth, and charge us too much for the hassle?
Shut up AC and dammit Google, take my money!
So what? (Score:2)
This will result in increased competition. What's the downside exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... probably his bonus won't pay for another sports car?
He's right (Score:2)
That uncertainty is crippling. Finally enshrine Net Neutrality in laws and be done with it!
Re: (Score:2)
That uncertainty is crippling. Finally enshrine Net Neutrality in laws and be done with it!
Then perhaps they should stop spending all the money fighting against it. Pretty difficult to complain about the uncertainty when they are a leading cause of it.
The reason for this is that (Score:2)
Public utilities should NEVER be unregulated.
Huh? (Score:2)
So Verizon is selling off it's wirelines because of the 5 people who still use dialup?
Aside from the obvious lie about why they are trying to get rid of something they've been wanting to get rid of for a long time, they really throw in a clinker....
The "Job creator" angle. Never worked, never will. It's like having three dogs, and you give one a dog treat. You think he's going to share any of it with the other two?
No sympathy for Verizon (Score:2)
Why not? Uncertainty drives change, and uncertainty at this point was created _by Verizon._ Granted, something had to change, because what the big ISPs have been doing is abusive at best.
Besides, it was Verizon that started this mess by trying to change the rules for its own benefit. Complaining now is just sour grapes. Enjoy your new Titl
Re: (Score:2)
None of the large telcos want to do copper line POTS anymore.
AT&T's newest Uverse runs on these "copper lines".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA, it's also FIOS they're getting out of non wireless infrastructure in those states.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... (Score:5, Insightful)
it's called a natural monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
zero government regulation doesn't mean magic free market fairy makes everything fair. it means you still have a monopoly, because the barrier to entry is too high: no one has billions to invest in building more conduits. or they have the money, but it's not worth the risk to them to invest billions and they don't make enough back after years, the network effect works against them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
google can compete, sure. so just wait for them to show up in your city in 40-50 years
meanwhile, you're still shafted in the ass with zero recourse whatsoever
government is not the problem
in fact, the ONLY solution you have to natural monopolies is government, via regulations
the problem we have in the usa is legalized corruption
corporations, by buying your congresscritters by funding their elections, and promising revolving door regulators a cushy job, *corrupt* your government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
there are other countries, canada, the nordics, where corruption is greatly reduced (it will always exist, the point is to minimize it). these countries do not have the same problems we have (see also: healthcare as another example of where the usa is corrupted and we are financially shafted with low quality, and our social and economic peers don't have the same level of problem)
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government. you would be asking them to heavily regulate natural monopolies, especially in regards to profit taking. please note heavy regulation does not mean *corrupt* regulations, which of course have to be reversed
but if you are a propagandized moron, you ask for a weakened government, which works for the plutocrats, because now there is no regulatory capture they have to engage in or corruption they have to fund. that makes them happy, and you get shafted even more in broadband (and healthcare)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [google.com]
Here [google.com]
and Here [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
there's no strawman, there's simply a solid economic concept you fail to understand in the formation of your opinion: the natural monopoly. in fact this concept is pretty much fundamental to the problem here. if you call a fundamental concept on the topic a "strawman," you can't be considered a serious person on this topic, your opinion is an uneducated one
what does that mean to you, the concept of a natural monopoly. is it a joke? is it made up? does it only exist because of government? is government a mor
Re: (Score:2)
please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option
We don't HAVE uncorrupt regulation. We HAVE corrupt monopolies issued by corrupt municipal governments. Preventing this (by banning exclusive franchises) would be a step toward de-corrupting the regulation, but you oppose this and I don't understand why.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you explain why the service providers insisted on government granting them artificial monopolies enforced by law if the barrier to entry would naturally create a monopoly for the first mover?
Re: (Score:2)
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government.
I DO want laws against corruption in government. Specifically, the kinds of laws I favor are the kinds of laws that tie the government's hands, so that they aren't WORTH bribing. If you look at fields where the government does NOT grant monopolies to incumbent providers, you will see that there's a variety of service options. Nobody ever complained that there aren't enough options for grocery stores. The reason that customer service in Internet Service Providers is terrible is that every municipality gives
Re: (Score:3)
the idea is to pass laws against corrupt regulation
if you get rid of regulation, you still have the monopolies. except without regulations, now they screw you without even having to pretend to be following fake rules they paid for
the idea that less regulations is somehow better is fucking stupid
the idea that regulations are automatically corrupt is spineless cynicism
there are plenty of countries with effective regulations. they get those with strong rules against corruption
meanwhile, the usa has legalized c
Re: (Score:2)
not a problem
feel free to never read or comment on a post of mine ever again
Re: (Score:2)
"Punch me in the face so I can call you a bully, dammit!"
Re: (Score:2)
No one, except a couple fuckwits that mod you up, gives a rat's ass what the fuck you think.
oh, ok
so somebody does?
Re: (Score:2)
do you know what fascism means?
Re: (Score:2)
And, for those of you who like government...
Oh I do because my government seems to ensure we have a sane telecoms industry and they've clamped down on things like fleecing customers for chargers and ripping us off for roaming calls. Go EU!
A would also not bet on "Net Neutrality" being the path to a utopian broadband future.
It's necessary but not sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w... [wired.com]