The Bell monopoly is the most
destructive economic roadblock of our time.
It has caused the United States to fall behind the rest of the world in broadband.
And now these same monopolists are threatening to make things worse by favoring specific Web providers over others, eliminating the network neutrality agreement that has allowed the Internet to grow.
They have to be stopped, now.
This monopoly is identical, in its impact, to the robber barons of the 1880s whose depredations gave rise to Populism and the first government regulations. (This book on the original robber barons available at Amazon.Com, despite being 44 years old.)
In this case, however, we are taking about something more pernicious. That's partly because these monopolists are already, supposedly, regulated, on both the federal and state level. These forums have been manipulated so they actually support the monopoly, and subsidies meant to improve service to under-served areas are simply pocketed by the monopolists.
Which brings me to the main point today, which is how both the urban and rural poor are manipulated to maintain the monopoly.
The short answer is they're bought off.
It's easy to see what's in this for the sellers. For minority legislators, the speed of the broadband service available to the community is not a big issue. Competition is not a high priority. In rural areas, just having service is the priorit y – the idea that they might have multiple vendors is not considered. In both these areas, the answer to service people can afford is said to be subsidy, not competition.
Subsidies meant to provide rural access
to services and lower-cost service to urban areas come in various
forms, but the most popular are the so-called Universal Service Fund and E-Rate for schoools,,
disparaged as the Gore Tax
in the 1990s but now and essential element in subsidizing the Bell
monopoly.
Under the law, Bell companies have first call on all these revenues. They are supposed to improve service with them. In fact, they pocket them, and use their monopoly status to keep competitors out. For instance, it would be much, much cheaper for a school to have a single access line and 802.11 wireless throughout the building. Instead, Bells force schools to buy expensive T-1 lines (the government subsidy makes them the cheap choice for the schools) and then create a wired network.
The broken promises of the Bells designed to gain rate hikes on the promise of fiber have been detailed extensively here, and in the $200 Billion Scandal by Bruce Kushnick. This is continuing, unabated. And no one in any legislator is talking seriously about ending the fraud or bringing competition to the broadband arena.
On to some specifics.
A December 5
Broadcasting & Cable story describes how an organization of black legislators are
supporting Bell moves against net neutrality. (The President of the group, a lady from Mississippi, is at left.) What isn't mentioned is how much money
Verizon contributes directly to the organization sending out this
press release.
Or
its sponsorship of the man in charge of handling the group's grant
proposals.
Or its subsidy of a “marketing” company, Mickey Ibarra
& Associates (Ibarra, a former Clinton Administration official, is pictured below),
to funnel money toward minority politicians, including its creation
of a report for the black legislators on which their stand is based.
Note this carefully. Verizon gives the group money. Verizon pays for the research on which its conclusions are based. Verizon works, through a third party, to funnel “contributions” into the community.
But wait there's more. Verizon uses its
ties to groups like this in filling out its own executive ranks. Its
new President for Maryland
is a former member of the group that has endorsed its gutting of net
neutrality. In fact the group proudly lists Verizon as among its top
“corporate contributors”
Is there any question, then, that the support of black legislators is bought-and-paid-for by the monopolists? The legislators are selling out a low priority to maintain power. Verizon is paying a relative pittance to make government dance to its tune.
And American competitiveness suffers.
This is the kind of issue open source politics was built for. These are the kind of personal and financial links that just did not see the light of day when you had to pay the costs of print or TV time. But with the Internet, they are available. And so is the means to disseminate it to everyone who cares how slow their broadband is, and how high its price is. And so is the means to activate that base, and point them in the direction of reform.
Recent Comments