Texas House Bill 789, under consideration in Texas, would impose one of the most extreme bans on municipal involvement in any form of communications--free or otherwise (the bill could ban free library access). This bill has already passed through the House and is now in the Texas state Senate. Link to the bill This bill is no different then, let's say, forbidding the citizens of a municipality from forming their own fire department...and making only one company the legal provider of "fire protection services". In short, SBC is asking the state of Texas to provide them with a legally-approved monopoly. And the state is doing it. Naturally, SBC is lobbying their heads off for this: http://telecomfortexas.org/sbcpstv6tx_ 1 .wmv http://telecomfortexas.org/ Un-fricking-believable. Can anyone tell me why this could possibly be "Good for Texas -- Good for Texans."?
Austin News has some articles on it: http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=133636&SecID=2
Right? I refuse to be surprised anymore. I mean, we have a freakin' senator from this state blaming judges being murdered on judicial activism for chrissakes and no one bats an eye. Green Day's about right.
I forwarded the above discussion to my friend at SBC. Here's his unedited response. Personally I think my buddy is drinking the SBC Kool-Aid "But the guy is wrong. He doesn't realize that government is not allowed to compete with corporations. SBC is just trying to make sure that the government solely focuses on its own job of running a city. Like fixing streets, schools and taking care of the needy. What municipalities are trying to do is set up their own telecom company so they can sell their own phone, internet and tv services. It is actually already against the law for federal government to compete against corporations. SBC is trying to make sure that local governments can compete against corporations. Especially when its their job to run a city not run a profit by selling phone services. On top of all that I think we have several companies competing against the phone company: cell phone companies, cable companies, VoIP companies and data over the airwaves companies (and there are many, satellite, etc). Anyway, the guy is just not informed. The library will still have phone and internet service. What municipalities are trying to do is provide wi-fi networks. I don't get it. There are already tons of companies doing this and not making money at it. Anyway, that is the low-down."
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The government can do whatever it wants at the behest of its citizens (well - thats the way it's supposed to work - here it appears to be the behest of well financed corporations). I'd like corporations like SBC to stay the f**k out of politics and law making, but that doesn't appear to be happening either... Profit is not a right. If your business model is getting old and outdated - adapt. Or die. Good quote: There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit. - Heinlein Irrelevent. The law is written so that any city/state-sponsored network would be potentially illegal. http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/high_tech/internet/2005/03/14/austin_story2.html?page=2 "King, who is chairman of the House Committee on Regulated Industries, says appropriate services might include Internet access in libraries, schools and city buildings. But watchdog groups point out that the bill's existing language doesn't clarify those distinctions." Regardless - he avoided the more pertinent question: What makes this a good idea? How does this bill assist Texans? What could possibly be a "good" reason to restrict a city from using it's tax money to supply a service its citizens desire?
I'd like to see which companies will provide wi-fi for an entire downtown area without the citizens having to pay (besides taxes). That's what he's talking about right, those plans for people to be able to sit anywhere with a laptop and get on the web?
Hi - This is the Kool-Aid kid again General Response: The basic argument is this: Government cannot do anything better for you than a private industry can that is regulated by competition. The fact that competition exists for SBC (in the form of other phone companies, cable companies, etc) ensures that rates will be low. Monopoly power should be closely monitored. I agree. However, excluding the government does not create a monopoly. Rather, allowing the government to oust private businesses will create the only true monopoly possible in this solution. Government monopoly. Capitalism works. If SBC overcharges you for services then you can switch to a different provider under the current system. If SBC doesn't provide good service then you can switch to a provider that will. If the government is allowed to set up telecom to compete they would be free of regulations which greatly hamper earnings of current telecom companies. Not to mention tax breaks. Do you think the government can provide these services with more efficiencies than a business who MUST PROVIDE THEM efficiently in order to survive? What will check government quality if not competition? Socialism fails. Empirically. Your Quote 1: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The government can do whatever it wants at the behest of its citizens (well - thats the way it's supposed to work - here it appears to be the behest of well financed corporations). My response: Allowing the government unchecked power is not a good idea. Government control does not work. What makes government an expert in telecommunications? I used to live in Columbia MO. We had free internet service from the government for a while called COIN. You couldn't see pictures, download files, it was slow as hell, and no one fixed it, ever. Know why? Because it was free. You may say, "who cares if it sucked... it was free!" That's simple-minded thinking. All the infrastructure behind it had to be paid for by someone. Do you know who? Yeah, it was you - Joe taxpayer! You paid for it, directly or indirectly. You also put a lot of companies that could provide the service much better out of business by using the governments free service, even though it sucked. You cost people their jobs. How does that help the economy? Eventually the local government dropped COIN. Your Quote: I'd like corporations like SBC to stay the f**k out of politics and law making, but that doesn't appear to be happening either... My response: So you want to put corporations out of business by making them compete with a government that can compete based only on lack of regulation and restriction? Your Quote: Profit is not a right. If your business model is getting old and outdated - adapt. Or die. My response: If you think SBC business model is old and outdated, wait until you see what you are stuck with when the government gets going. Profit isn't a right, but fair competition absolutely is. Our whole economic system is founded upon it. SBC gets a profit because it competes very ably in the market by offering service that is either affordable or of better quality than its competitors. You would prefer a government that competes solely based upon legal technicalities/lack of restrictions. In effect, you would cause a predatory pricing effect. Government would be offering service at a point that is lower than either their marginal cost or total variable cost. That is monopolization at its truest economics base. Look it up in your economics book. Are the semantics of this bill the best way to insure fair competition? I don't know. But the theory of the bill is correct. Government should not interfere with market competition. Your Quote: Irrelevent. My response: If you are charging that SBC has monopoly power, you must prove that competitors do not exist. The fact that competition exists and prices are the lowest they have ever been seems to on face refute that thought process. Having a monopoly through business efficiencies and competitive advantages is not illegal. Monopolization IS illegal but hasn't happened. Your Quote: Regardless - he avoided the more pertinent question: What makes this a good idea? How does this bill assist Texans? What could possibly be a "good" reason to restrict a city from using it's tax money to supply a service its citizens desire? My response: This bill assists Texans BECAUSE it supports corporations. Corporations are not evil. They provide efficient and effective services and also give jobs TO TEXANS (all points that were explained in full above). Corporations are also taxed at a huge amount. If SBC didn't exist I don't know that governments would be able to muster enough funds to provide these free services in the first place. Government control is a slippery slope. It doesn't work but it is deceptively appealing because it is offered to you for free. It won't work as well as a private company, costs tax dollars, and will eliminate private alternatives through its predatory pricing. Did I mention that government controlled businesses suck? Good Qoute: "Readers seem to be screaming for "cable-ready" socialism. Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it. When you ask the government to provide your services in competition with private industry, you begin down the slippery slope toward socialism. Governmental bodies get regulatory, tax and fee breaks not available to private industry and can therefore compete unfairly. When we are all government employees, our nation will lose the individual motivation and efficiencies inherent in a democratic and capitalistic society. If you think government can provide a service more cheaply, think again. While your monthly bill may look smaller, loss of tax revenues and jobs from private industry and another notch toward dependency on government for "cradle-to-grave" care make the cost so much greater. Democracies are likely to evolve toward socialism and ultimately to collapse as their citizens learn they can vote government monies and services to themselves instead of limiting government disbursements only to those in need." The basic argument is this: Government cannot do anything better for you than a private industry can that is regulated by competition. The fact that competition exists for SBC (in the form of other phone companies, cable companies, etc) ensures that rates will be low. Monopoly power should be closely monitored. I agree. However, excluding the government does not create a monopoly. Rather, allowing the government to oust private businesses will create the only true monopoly possible in this solution. Government monopoly. Capitalism works. If SBC overcharges you for services then you can switch to a different provider under the current system. If SBC doesn't provide good service then you can switch to a provider that will. If the government is allowed to set up telecom to compete they would be free of regulations which greatly hamper earnings of current telecom companies. Not to mention tax breaks.
Wow. Just wow. Your friend is an absolute tool - but he does know enough philosphy to make some interesting (if misguided) points. Unfortunately, I have to go build a fence now, but I will try to respond later this evening...
