CenturyLink: We Lobby For Protectionist State Laws Because You Didn't Want Faster Fiber Anyway
from the these-are-not-the-droids-you're-looking-for dept
As we've noted, the very first place to start if we're seriously interested in fixing U.S. broadband competition problems is the protectionist laws ISPs paid to have passed in nearly two-dozen states. These laws hinder or outright ban towns and cities across the country from not only building their own broadband networks in areas ISPs refuse to serve, but they also in many cases prohibit towns and cities from cooperating with smaller private companies. These laws were passed like wild fire over a fifteen-year span, but have seen renewed attention lately as Google Fiber fuels a lust for more competition and faster, cheaper networks.One of the biggest historical supporters of these laws is CenturyLink (formerly CenturyTel, and before that, Qwest). From suing to prevent Utah towns and cities from using Qwest poles in 2005, to teaming with Time Warner Cable to pass awful laws in the Carolinas, CenturyLink has been a starring player in making sure towns and cities can't improve their own broadband fortunes -- even in cases where companies like CenturyLink refuse to.
At the receiving end of this behavior are towns like Wilson, North Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee -- both of which have tried to build better broadband networks but ran face first into the handy work of companies like Comcast, AT&T, CenturyLink and Time Warner Cable. Both towns recently petitioned the FCC (pdf), asking the agency to preempt portions of Tennessee and North Carolina state statutes that restrict their ability to provide or expand broadband services. Instead of standing up for local rights or against letting lumbering duopolies write telecom law, politicians like Martha Blackburn sided with the telecom companies, pushing laws trying to tie the FCC's hands on the matter (you know, for the rights of the little people).
While municipal broadband opponents often try to vilify these efforts as "government run amok," the reality is that these towns and cities wouldn't be trying to enter the broadband business if we had meaningful competition driving better pricing and services. In a recent New York Times story exploring these awful laws, CenturyLink feebly attempts to defend itself to the Times, insisting that it's not building faster next-generation fiber networks -- because nobody actually wants them:
"We build our network to meet customer expectations,” said Bill Hanchey, a CenturyLink regional vice president who oversees government affairs. But customers are not clamoring for the speed provided by fiber, he said. "It does us no good to go out and build networks that customers don’t need or aren't requesting."The Times doesn't bother to challenge this assertion, and CenturyLink doesn't explain why cities and towns are trying to build better broadband if they don't want faster, better service. That customers don't want faster fiber is probably of particular note to the tens of millions of CenturyLink customers whose aging, expensive DSL lines (capped at 150 GB of usage each month, no less) struggle to reach speeds of 3-6 Mbps downstream.
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, competition, fiber, municipal broadband
Companies: centurylink
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CenturyLink is Obviously Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintentional truth in spokesperson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- First we shape the customer expectations by making faster speeds too expensive for them.
- Second, we have proof that they do not want faster internet because they do not buy the most expensive offer.
- Third, the last bit of "second" means no-one wants faster internet.
- Fourth, we conclude that we cannot increase revenue by raising prices so we find some other way (caps, traffic-shaping &c.)
Makes perfect sense for a monopolist with customers in desperate need of some regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What he said is like Nokia saying until 2007 "well people aren't asking for touchscreen phones anyway, so why should we build them?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
P.S. I would love to see that image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well I'm now paying almost twice as much as I did 5 years ago but my speed stayed the same for fiber. My only other choice is DSL: less expensive, but way less speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One would think...
So, other than the short sighted mantra "Protectionism" (AKA: it is easier to compete when there is no competition), what do they gain by putting roadblocks in obvious paths to growth? If you build the more expensive network, then you get to charge more, and even if you keep your profit margin ratio the same, you are getting a bigger piece of a larger pie.
Are they afraid of competing with themselves?
Is the effort at keeping quarterly earnings on the rise so pervasive that any spending that is investment rather than dividend verboten?
It don't make sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One would think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One would think...
Of course the current land gains in copper is limited to about 300/30 in theory and an expensive roll out with fiber all the way except max 500 meters to the customer, but that is it: They can save a few bucks short term by getting legal requirements for "last mile connection" trashed. Competition would be unbearable since it is impossible for them to see past a 5 year financial horizon and the current technology is increasing fast. It is facing a theoretical limit not far after that, but the economy stupid!
On Wifi the competition is more problematic since 150/15 mbit is already achievable and is so much cheaper in the very expensive infrastructure department. But the current situation of Wifi is limited because of connection losses due to geographical restrictions and interferences that doesn't have an easy fix.
In short they want to protect their investment and the best way to protect an investment in a technologically fast developing world is through monopolizing and in other ways working the political system to remove hinderances to their bottomline. The "people don't want it, don't need it", "we don't need FCC to regulate us" and "competition is already good" is just a way to protect the investment with a technology that is developing faster than they can afford to upgrade to. The astroturfing campaigns is just a technique to insulate politicians from the publics obviously negative opinion. If the opposing message gets mudded, the politicians will be more likely to help them, since they can point to the divide and conclude that the opposition is sporadic and weak.
It is the same situation with IP since almost all commercial interests are biased towards broader coverage and security since public discussion is effectively impossible with one interest having no access to the information needed and the other using the information monopoly to control the angles on discussions among politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Lobby For Protectionist State Laws because fuck you. You'll take what we give you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
customer expectations,
Wow! What a coincidence! That is exactly how my lower intestines work. They know my expectations of what their product will smell like, and that is why they don't make anything that smells like roses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: customer expectations,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11253203/Frenchman-develops-pills-to-ma ke-flatulence-smell-of-roses.html
He does not make a pill for making your Provider to smell better yet though... might want to send in some ideas... maybe patent while you are at it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But here in Denver...
"What will you do with your gig?"
Of course they don't mention that it has extremely limited availability, and is insanely expensive and is capped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But here in Denver...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But here in Denver...
"I have no idea, you've never been willing or able to deliver it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for nothing, NY Times.
How could they let that get by them without questioning it? "... don't need or aren't requesting" are such transparent lies meaning "aren't willing to pay our extortionate prices for and sign up to protection racket style multi-year contracts for them, which *is* what we're willing to give them instead."
People can't even understand their hard copy invoices after spending hours banging their heads on them.
Shouldn't somebody be digging into congressional records to find out which of those jerks to hang for letting this mess happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]