kderby
join:2000-02-09
Bellingham, MA | Free market system? Isn't Verizon's denial of wiring any area that they deem as 'non-profitable' part of the free market system?
They're not required by anyone to install anything anywhere. This is akin to someone forcing Shell to set up a gas station in a rural area, that only serves a few cars.
As someone stated above, until broadband is treated as a utility (and is essentially *required* to be delivered to all citizens [for the most part, don't split hairs here]),then these companies can install or not install as they see fit. |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Well Verizon has asked for special rules that help them, and even asked to up fees for services so they could "fund" fios deployment. If your refering to free market, cable doesnt ask for any special privileges. Pennsylvinia is a good example, where they where given a boatload of money and did nothing. Cable on the other just delivered.
--
the darkest moment is often just before dawn (unless we hold onto the darkness). Anxiety spoils everything and solves nothing. |
|
| reply to kderby
That is true, however President Bush made a telecommunications act that requires all areas to have broadband by (guessing, 2009). That same act delegates that television be converted to iptv in a couple of years. Not only is this act in effect, it also rewrites and overrides some rules of capitalism.
P.S. Keep in mind that I am not trying to start a flame war on bush, I am completely sick of the lack of support for government and I am a republican. |
|
| reply to kderby
Actually, the system is not at all a "free market system."
A true free market system requires not only no (govt.) regulation of price, but also depends on a perfect competition model to avoid buyers getting screwed when sellers create artificial scarcity.
Here Verizon has no (real) competition. Verizon also can and has created scarcity. Last but not least, Verizon is using it's position as a utility to bring in the infrastructure and prevent other competition whenever and where ever it can.
As a side note to this, where ever they are installing FIOS, they are tearing out the copper to prevent having to share the copper ie. there's no copper so we don't have to share, and there's no law saying we have to share the fiber. This is currently happening here in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.
Back to the discussion: so put another way, in a free market system, a rural customer might have to pay more, but would be able to purchase the service. There are other economic models, that work similarly, but also have the extra profit made from serving the dense areas being used to subsidize the extra current cost of setting up in less dense areas. the seller then makes it back as he sees a profit from the late comers.
This is like a public improvement district where the first comers pay to set the lights/sewer/water/whatever up and subsequent builders have to pay the buy-in or hookup charge that reimburses the first people to build in an area and fronted the costs.
If Verizon or whomever is going to get a franchise (the exclusive right to service a given area) they gotta cover he whole area. If the agreement leaves loopholes you can drive a truck through, the residents need to blame the UTC and the government that was involved in granting the franchise. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to kderby
The Point Is that Verizon is looking for an Unfair advantage in its Battle with the cable Companys , Almost all cable company Franchise's required the cable company to wire the whole city or town,Including economical depressed areas and provide free service to schools Libarys what verizon wants is to pick and choose who and where they will wire Fios, anyboy see this as redlining communities |
|
