ma bell's matriarchy
A while ago I wrote about Philadelphia's plans to offer citywide wifi access. I argued that data should be thought of as a utility, that it's a natural monopoly, and that it ought to be run by the municipal government. I also said that Philly's plan was doomed, since the city is Comcast's home base. Well, I was wrong. It looks like the city's wifi plans are going forward. And it turns out that Comcast wasn't a jerk about it. Verizon was.
Right before the plan went through, some eleventh hour legislation magically appeared forbidding Pennsylvania towns from offering fee-based broadband access without giving the local phone company the right of first refusal. If the telco decides it'd rather not have the government offering cheap, universal service, it can veto the plan and offer a similar service within 14 months.
Some folks were a little irked by this. The argument goes along the lines of "WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED VERIZON'S PERMISSION TO BUILD PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE?!" I guess you can argue it's unfair for industry to have to compete with a partially-subsidized civic scheme -- although you'd still have to convince my why I should care. But an entirely subsidized, no-fee service is specifically allowed by the legislation. So I'm at a loss -- why should Pennsylvanians have to ask for Verizon's seal of approval if they want to leverage economies of scale to save some money, attract hi-tech companies and help bridge the digital divide?
Amid the controversy Verizon graciously agreed to waive the right of first refusal they were fighting so hard to get. Hurrah! What great guys. The broadband plan can proceed. And oh, while we're at it, let's just sign that legislation anyway. You know, it's already all drawn up. Might as well. ...That's it. Right on the line here. Great -- thanks! Oh, and FUCK YOU to every other town in Pennsylvania. Verizon's your daddy now.
I don't want to beat up on Verizon -- or at least I don't want to want to. They've consistently stood up on their customers' behalf against the RIAA and its nasty DMCA subpoena factory; plus they don't employ secret bandwidth caps like some of their competitors. But whatever goodwill they've earned with my inner geek, the rabid technosocialist in me bristles at the idea of legislation that halts progress in order to legally enshrine a corporation's imagined right to profit.
Comments
My understanding is that the Philadelphia model is not actually "fee-free" but would charge about $15/month for broadband wireless access. I'm not saying that we should care any more deeply, but it IS more of a competition issue.
Verizon's stand against the RIAA isn't sourced in benevolence or belief in EFF-type freedom. Verizon sues the RIAA (or refuses to comply with the subpoena and waits for the RIAA to seek a court order to enforce the subpoena and responds in court) so Verizon's customers don't sue them (although I'm not sure of the merits of those suits). It also makes good business sense for Verizon. If Verizon turned over customer info at the drop of a hat, customers would not be happy and switch providers.
Well, I'm prepared to believe it's all about self-preservation, but at least their calculus has resulted in a position that's favorable to the consumer. That's all that's important to me. That they're doing it to keep customers rather than out of principle is fine -- broadband companies tend to have pseudo-monopoly status. That they're concerned about serving the customer's interests at all is a good thing.
Post A Comment