Telecoms Sue Over High-Speed Links They Wont Provide

[sentelle]

http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202422769174&rss=ltn

Telecoms Sue Over High-Speed Links
By Peter Page
The National Law Journal
July 7, 2008


Telecommunications companies are suing cities around the nation to stop the construction of publicly owned fiber optic systems to bring high-speed Internet, telephone and cable television to communities far from metropolitan centers.

...
The city, complaining that neither TDS nor its competitor Charter Communications Inc. would bring fiber cable to every home and business, won a 74 percent majority in a referendum to build a municipal system. TDS sued on the eve of a city council meeting to finalize the plan.

"The municipal system will be in direct competition with private companies," said David Johnson of Sidley Austin in Chicago, who is representing TDS. "The city is construing public convenience so broadly it would allow the city of Monticello to go into competition with any business in the city if it didn't like the prices or services, and they could do it with tax-free financing with no need to make a profit."

John Baker of Greene Espel in Minneapolis, who represents the city, said cities across the state had used the broadly worded state law to sell bonds backed by anticipated revenues to build water parks, ambulance services, ski areas and Internet services.

"TDS is trying to take the open-ended authority of Minnesota municipalities to issue revenue bonds for public convenience and define 'public convenience' right out of existence," Baker said. A motion for dismal is scheduled to be argued on July 18. Bridgewater Telephone Co. v. Monticello, No. 86-CV-08-4555.

This is a dangerous thing: allowing a business the right to not provide service, and to allow no one else to fill in the gap....

[meegbear]

1. Well they should have done it in the first place ...

in the 90s, they received billions in tax credits and incentives to build the infastructure. And when they were called on it, they said they needed more tax credits to build it.

Fuck 'em.

[Raster]

2. It is time to NATIONALIZE the information infrastructure in this country.

[krkaufman]

10. hear, hear!

If it's supposed to be the information super-highway, than let's treat it as such and ensure uniform quality and access.

That doesn't mean there can't be toll roads for those willing to pay a little extra.

[Raster]

11. The "toll road" concept is pure subterfuge. It isn't about business, it's about censorship and

CONTROL! The Internet has been a royal pain in the ass to factions and forces that would rather you and I not know what is truly going on in our country and our world. REMEMBER: an ignorant, uninformed citizen body is one that is easily manipulated and CONTROLLED! Most, and I do mean MOST, of the mainstream media--radio, television, newspapers, magazines--are now worthless for providing accurate, impartial, unbiased information about the current world and national state of affairs. The Internet is now the only medium where accurate information even has a chance of being disseminated to the citizenry.

[maxpower]

19. Spot on

Nationalize the oil companies too.

[robinlynne]

3. I love it. The telecoms complain that the city can do ti with NO NEED TO MAKE A PROFIT!

Guess what profit is not a human need.
Communication is.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Fuck the monopolistic behavior of Charter, et al.

These cretins suck the consumer dry with their collusive practices. If they operate in an unethical manner, this is what happens. Too fucking bad.

[pleah]

5. K&R I hope the telecons lose big time.

[Hydra]

6. Your final words say it all:

"This is a dangerous thing: allowing a business the right to not provide service, and to allow no one else to fill in the gap...."

Sound like the oil companies?

[madokie]

7. Its happening here in Chouteau ok as I type

att signed an agreement with whoever to provide us here with high speed internet for 14.95, I pay 39.95 for the same speed btw, months ago in some telecom deal with the fcc but as of now they still don't offer it here. The next town over, 10 miles away, has it but not us here. The part that pisses me off to no end on the deal is the convoluted way to even get to finding they don't offer it here yet is about a 3 hr ordeal. thats a pisser to say the least. done been there and done that once. fuck 'em

[jtrockville]

8. When the market fails (and clearly it has), it's time for muni networks.

Though I'd argue we should have muni networks along side privately owned (telco/cableco) networks. USPS coexists with FedEx and UPS. Public schools coexist with private schools. etc etc.

[TahitiNut]

9. Municipally-owned fiber to the curb is absolutely the way to go!

It's INSANE to privatize such service infrastructure.


Notice how quickly the corporatists change their tune? First they arrogantly proclaim that private industry is cheaper and more cost-effective than anything government can do and then they whine when government DOES it more cost-effectively! They've been playing this game for many decades - centuries, even. They complain when public employees are paid better than private employees doing the same work. "Not fair!" they say. At the same time, they're bellied up to the public trough, feeding on taxpayer funds because they're too damned lazy and corrupt to EARN the trust of people. Easier to buy a politician or two.

[Raster]

12. It is now the time for this country to have a serious and frank discussion about

"corporate personhood." It is clear the concept of immortal persona for business entities is only good for the business entities.

[redqueen]

14. Hear hear... corporate personhood was never a good idea.

It's long past time to end that mess.

[Deja Q]

13. If corporations whine that there's no skilled help, why whine when someone else wants to provide

the means to help make people skilled?

[Selatius]

15. Ah, the struggle between socialism and capitalism.

We have here a confrontation between a municipal non-for-profit entity, owned ostensibly by the people, and a for-profit entity owned by a relatively small number of shareholders over a service or good provided or will be provided.

The for-profit entity, with the fiduciary burden of generating shareholder wealth, is afraid that they will be undersold by the simple fact that the not-for-profit entity does not also tack on a profit mark-up on the service it delivers compared to the for-profit entity. It's also the reason why health insurance companies are opposed to any not-for-profit health insurance entities.

[bean fidhleir]

16. Which is why DK saved Muny Light: it's non-profit which has meant over $300M savings meanwhile

It's why credit unions, mutual insurance companies, and other types of co-op almost always have far better service than for-profits.

[Eric J in MN]

17. Under this corporate theory, libraries should be illegal...

...as unfair competition to bookstores.

[Indenturedebtor]

20. Hah send that argument to the lawyers on our side of the divide

What is this bullshit about the "right to profit"? Do it cheaper and better and people will choose your company. What about our right to choose a telecom provider?

[Eric J in MN]

21. The corporations would like for people to have to...

...choose between one cable company and one DSL company for internet, without being able to choose public fiber optic.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

:kick:

[baldguy]

22. "The city is construing public convenience so broadly...."

"...it would allow the city of Monticello to go into competition with any business in the city if it didn't like the prices or services, and they could do it with tax-free financing with no need to make a profit."

When a service is vital to the life, health or economy of a community its called a "public utility". And in most countries, thats exactly how the telephone system is set up. The needs of the public supersedes the need for profit.

It may very well be that these private companies have good reasons to believe that stringing fiber to every business & household would not be a profitable venture for the, and they had a perfect right to refuse to set up this infrastructure & provide services for it. Once they did, the city had a perfect right to do it in their place.