Replies

Can you cite me any examples of how “tyranny” has impacted a public utility such as landline phone service that already operates under a “net neutral” model?

Well, I remember paying hundreds of dollars for long distance before the benevolent government monopoly was broken. I also see huge taxes on current phone bills and other public utilities. Regulated markets do not belong in a free society, and in case you hadn’t noticed, the “poor” have better cell phone than many of us who are paying for their “emergency” Obamaphones.

I pay more in gov’t fees and taxes on my landline than I do for the phone service.

This is close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]

Can you cite me any examples of how “tyranny” has impacted a public utility such as landline phone service that already operates under a “net neutral” model?

Pricing models for public utilities enable them to charge a maximum in every market, having no relation to costs. Prices are set at what the market will bear, no matter how ridiculously high that is.

Utility prices, for the same service, vary dramatically depending on how affluent an area is. The idea is that the biggest revenue potential is in the suburbs and cities, and they want the price as high as possible in those areas.

It results in windfall revenue, and the companies do a terrible job of investing in their own infrastructure. Instead, money is wasted.

I've talked to a few folks who worked for telcos, and they recount stories of ridiculous spending. I suggested to one that it was because if budgeted spending was not spent it would be removed from the next years budget, and he said no, it was spent because otherwise it would just continue to pile up. I've worked at telcos myself, and they simply hire armies of people and have a culture of everyone just sitting quietly in all the insanity of waste and taking their paycheck. I personally know of an offer of 2,000 hours of programming contracting (a year) to "do something sexy", where there really nothing that needing doing.

Any time they want a rate increase, they can push it through.

Us NJ folks have seen the local NJ power utility landscape get consolidated into a large regional. They "saved" money by downsizing local maintenance staff. They keep a smaller team locally, which is supplemented by resources farther away if necessary. But is any savings passed on in the form of lower bills ? Nope. They "saved" by not cutting enough brush around wires. The past decade or so has seen terrible responses to outages, and more outages than I can ever remember for far weaker storms than decades ago, when the power rarely went out, and if it did it was back on at the most in a few hours. One town buys their service in bulk, resells to their own citizens, and does all their own local line maintenance. When "superstorm sandy" hit - they were the first town with power, needless to say.

The tyranny of it all - this all makes utility services far more expensive than they have to be.

And that most painful impact of that - THE POOR. Even if they don't own a home but they rent, they still pay for utilities, either directly or they are included in the price of rent.

All this legislation - they say - is to help the "little guy", the "poor", the "disadvantaged". In truth, the legislation KEEPS OUT COMPETITION.

The price of computing has gone down by thousands of percent in the past few decades. What amounts to a supercomputer can now be purchased for a couple hundred bucks.

In that same time, communication costs have gone through the roof.

Since voice data is such a small part of network traffic, voice service should really be simply part of internet service, that is, internet should include voice for the same price, because that's all the hardware that's needed for voice. I have voice and internet coming over the same wire - but it's two different services with two different bills. But one wire ! The only reason voice is its own service is because telcos still have billions in sales of voice and don't want to give up that revenue. And they don't yet have internet service brought under control of their dear old FCC.

Instead of dropping the redundant voice business - they want to bring data services into the FCC REGULATION FOLD - to join voice there.

If data service was classified as an FCC-regulated utility, the telcos would then be ok with folding their voice and data businesses into one.

This is because the FCC and its regulation is a key part of the business model of the telcos - it keeps out small competition that would significantly undercut price.

Think about this information "superhighway" concept: what if the wiring for phone and internet service which is out in the street outside your home was owned and maintained by your town, like the road is. Most towns don't have separate road taxes, it's included with your property taxes. What if everyone could just string an ethernet wire out to the pole and connect to their town's internet service for no additional charge, if that's what their town decided they wanted to set up ? Better yet, what if multiple companies could wire your town - so you could choose which want you wanted to use. Don't like your service ? Switch a switch on your box and switch services. No regulation, but competition, with local governments able to get in on the competition if the citizens of the town decide they want to provide this service for themselves for free.

The days of $100+/month phone bills would be over. But the telcos would face stiff competition and have to compete for real, probably massively downsize; they no likey.

Can you cite me any examples of how “tyranny” has impacted a public utility such as landline phone service that already operates under a “net neutral” model?

Have you by any chance seen any of the taxes, fees, and charges tacked onto land line phone bills? In a very short time the same taxes, fees, and charges will be tacked on to the internet services.