Telcos Resisting Broadband Stimulus Because They're Worried It Might Force Them To Compete
from the if-they're-all-upset,-that's-a-sign dept
We've had a lot of concerns about the broadband stimulus package, since it was shaping up to look like little more than a handout to incumbent operators who have a long history of grabbing public money, then not living up to the promises they made to get it. The real problem underlying most issues having to do with broadband in the US is a lack of competition, so any stimulus needs to address that, instead of just throwing money blindly at broadband providers. Mobile operators have already complained about anything that might force them to compete interfering with the government broadband giveaway; now BusinessWeek reports that several incumbent telcos are holding back from the stimulus, because they're afraid the government will attach strings to it to try and increase competition. Most of all, they're worried they may have to allow line-sharing, which, of course, they worked very hard to get tossed out in 2005. The rules are still under discussion, but we're optimistic that the opportunity to effect some positive change on the broadband market won't get left behind in the rush to throw money at it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, broadband policy, competition, stimulus
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is there any word how the cable companies are handling sharing the last mile of their networks? Oh yeah, wait, this isn't aimed at ALL methods of broadband, just the series of tubes the politicians can understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WH
Whose money were they spending ? ... Yours and Mine !
Harold - dont be such a obvious pundit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WH
Ah, only half of the story, though. Because due to subsidies and gov't granted rights of way, the gov't has granted these companies a defacto monopoly.
And, like the highway system, there's a reasonable argument that these are natural monopolies (don't want to allow too many people to dig up everyone's lawn, after all). So there's quite a reasonable argument for line sharing.
Furthermore, the doom and gloom scenarios that line sharing somehow takes away from incentive to invest or possible return isn't actually seen in many countries that do hang line sharing requirements on gov't subsidies and rights of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WH
Highways are mostly built by the people for the people. There are toll roads and such, but the vast majority (99.x%) of the road network is publically owned. There are very few PPP (Private Public Partnership) or outright private ownership with fees, at least in the overall scheme of things.
In the case of broadband, instead of building a network, the government throws money at the people who have the monopoly already and make them stronger, and do so without restriction. So instead of turning the phone network over time into a government owned, leased to the service provider networks, the government has instead continued to build up the strength of the monopoly players. They didn't build any public roads, they just gave money to private companies and let them build toll roads all over.
In Canada, Bell (the monopoly for a big chunk of the country) is pretty much saying it won't upgrade it's network if it has to share. http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/03/13/bell.threatens.can.govt/
When forced sharing starts to make it less attractive to upgrade the network, then there is a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WH
Yeah, riiiight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's bigger than telcos
State government rejected arguements that the public schools were bound to open their networks after school hours, like they must open the school after hours for other public uses, like meetings.
Once the Feds began to offer incentives for more broadband to rural areas, the Kentucky legislature invited a study to examine the access to broadband in each county (and Kentucky has more of them than you can imagine)-it was frequently suggested in their public meetings that they map the _competition_, that is, map how many providers operated in an area. That map has never been produced.
It's a nasty bedfellow thing here, where state government is part of the problem that retains exorbitant prices for broadband in most of the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]