Comment Re:This is the way business works, kids (Score 2) 158
Think yourself you retard. The Baby Bells do not compete in each others' territory, ever. No one gets to 'choose' between Baby Bells, you just get to deal with whoever owns your territory. Given the incumbent's stranglehold on Central Offices and the local loop, they would be fools to try to expand from their territory and compete with another incumbent.
The Bells were awarded exclusive, monopolistic franchises and rights of way a hundred years ago by the Federal goverment, and therefore should continue to be subject to regulation for receipt of those franchises. Either that, or all competitive local phone companies should have the same priviledges, or landlords/residence owners should be free to charge Verizon and SBC whatever they feel like for use of their riser space (say 40% of revenues?).
It is not illegal to be a monopoly, just to use that monopolist power to dominate a new business. DSL, remember, is/was a new business (despite the Bell's decade's long use of HDSL to provision T-1 services). There has never been a more boldfaced violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act than the inumbent Bells' exploitation of their local loop monopoly to extinguish any and all competition in the DSL monopoly. (And don't whine about their having to compete with cable since cable was awarded exclusive franchises as well.)
Mark my words that the Bells will get what they deserve: a forced divestiture of their own infrastructure. Not in this administration (who's taken huge payola from the Bells), but the next to be sure.
The Bells were awarded exclusive, monopolistic franchises and rights of way a hundred years ago by the Federal goverment, and therefore should continue to be subject to regulation for receipt of those franchises. Either that, or all competitive local phone companies should have the same priviledges, or landlords/residence owners should be free to charge Verizon and SBC whatever they feel like for use of their riser space (say 40% of revenues?).
It is not illegal to be a monopoly, just to use that monopolist power to dominate a new business. DSL, remember, is/was a new business (despite the Bell's decade's long use of HDSL to provision T-1 services). There has never been a more boldfaced violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act than the inumbent Bells' exploitation of their local loop monopoly to extinguish any and all competition in the DSL monopoly. (And don't whine about their having to compete with cable since cable was awarded exclusive franchises as well.)
Mark my words that the Bells will get what they deserve: a forced divestiture of their own infrastructure. Not in this administration (who's taken huge payola from the Bells), but the next to be sure.
