Telecoms Sue Over High-Speed Links

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 6:44 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: 'Dewayne Hendricks'
Subject: Telecoms Sue Over High-Speed Links

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

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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It’s one thing for the Regulatorium to aid and abet a telecommunications model in the style of 19th century railroads.

But it’s another thing when they actively intervene to prevent people from creating their own solutions.

This is like a railroad robber suing cities that built roads because they threatened their monopoly. It’s worse because 
these companies show disrespect for the US Constitution by insisting that people must pay them merely to communicate. 
These companies are defending a model that would not be viable were it not for the corporate welfare they receive 
courtesy the Regulatorium. The level playing field argument is bogus because the basic concept of telecommunications as 
a service is bogus.

I may disagree with some of the funding models for municipal connectivity but they should have the option of doing it 
themselves. Even more so if the carriers haven’t deigned to provide services but only responded when the community took 
control of its own fate.

The cruel irony is that the carriers may be arguing that the cities are competing with them because muni-bells are in 
the mold of traditional telecom – perhaps the problem is cities aren’t bold enough and didn’t go all the way to 
undermine the basic idea of telecommunications as a service. If they fund it directly as infrastructure then the 
carriers’ basic service-provider model would be undermined and that would do far more damage than some cities competing 
on their own terms. Maybe the carriers would force them to go all the way to the funding infrastructure. If that 
happens the carriers have to face up to their real problem – justifying why people must be forced to pay them for 
services the users can do better themselves and explaining how they could make money when they keep bits confined to 
billable paths.

http://www.frankston.com/public



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com