Should we nationalize American's telephone companies...

[originalpckelly]

Poll question: Should we nationalize American's telephone companies...

Most of the CEOs in the telephone industry are terribly over-paid, and their stocks are cash cows.

Should we combine all of America's telephone companies into a single nationalized company?

[liberal N proud]

1. Regulated but not nationalized

[BayCityProgressive]

2. I work for AT&T

and I say yes.Nationalized yet decentralized so that each state and community can do what works for them. We spend so much time trying to ram things down people's throats they don't need that customer service takes a back seat. The CEO'S are drastically overpaid. The CEO of AT&T if paid by a 40 hr work week would make $11,000 an HOUR!all that money could go towards lower prices for consumers.

[Cleita]

16. You poor thing. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

3. at least we have competition

with a monopoly in the phone industry, even a government one we have problems. no incentive to improve product or make new advances in technology.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. That's not really true.

lots of government agencies change themselves as needed. The post office and military come to mind.

[Pavulon]

7. So does the IRS and DMV

government has a great way of fucking stuff up. I remember a speech bill Clinton gave to technology leaders about industry driving security. His realization is that government can not nor should not run every aspect of life.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. The Post Office

hasn't been government-run for decades. And in case you haven't noticed, companies like FedEx and UPS have been kicking its ass.

And the military isn't exactly known for great forward thinking and innovation. Private companies do that work - the military purchases the results.

[Solon]

38. Actually, USPS IS technically government run, as a government owned...

public corporation, a non-profit corporation at that. Also, before you say that FedEx and UPS are kicking its ass, do realize that the USPS runs more mail and packages in a DAY than FedEx, UPS, and DHL do, combined, in an entire YEAR.

[genie_weenie]

4. So the NSA can install permanent

programs and databanks at the National Phone Company HQ?

[Pavulon]

5. Because we are not a asset grabbing

pseudo communist 3rd world dump. Companies allowed to innovate and take profit will come up things like iphones, internet on your cell, and all the things that make the us a better place to live that most countries.

Where would you rather have your heart replacesd here or north korea. Hmm, they have great medical imaging and advanced technology in controlled markets, nope. Even chine reverse engineers most of the stuff it produces, including jets and electronic.

Companies that are constrained have no reason to innovate. This leads to shitty service and stagnation.

[RB TexLa]

25. very well said

:toast:

[Zorra]

8. Yes, why not? Fascists are tapping our phones at will already,

and maybe we could get rights to phone privacy restored if the American people take the phone companies over.

[originalpckelly]

9. What about reply 4?

That's actually a good point in reply #4. I mean if Bush is wiretapping now, it'd be even easier to wiretap if the company was government owned.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. well

the "American people" you have such faith in would be the same "American people" that you're calling fascists who are tapping our phones.

We only have one government.

[ngant17]

10. seems like a simple thing to do

A telephone connection requires 2 wires, one at +45 volts DC and the other at -45 volts DC. Once you can generate the DC voltage, that's all you need to make a voice line. The network and the switching devices require periodic maintenance. All the wiring infrastructure has been in place for many years and a certain amount of field personnel is needed to keep it up and running. No need to hire CEOs who aren't in the field getting their hands dirty and climbing telephone poles for repairs. If you nationalize the POTS (plain old telephone service), we could dump all the overpaid white-collar baggage and make local POTS so cheap in America it would be essentially free for everyone.

Outside of US, the pricing for international calls will be difficult to regulate in some places, as there are fees and tariffs which foreign countries charge and we have no control over it.

[TexasProgresive]

27. You have an overly simplified idea of how it works

First it's -48 Volts DC on one side return on the other. Second that will give you voice transmission but does nothing for switching and services. Central Offices are full of equipment that terminates fiber and metallic lines that require highly trained personnel to install and maintain.

I agree with the over paid executives but that the same in all major industries.

What I would like to see is a regulated monopoly similar to what was in place before the break up of MaBell but with incentives in place that would encourage innovation. I don't believe that there are any real savings since the breakup. In fact if there were some way to compare we probably pay more then we did in the past overall.

[ngant17]

30. fiber optics doesn't require "highly trained" personnel

but you need highly-expensive testing equipment to track and repair the fiber lines. It is not necessary to have a degree in electrical engineering to do this.

There is some dirty work involved with digging up and pulling cable but again, this is not rocket science.

As for phone voltage, yes, it is closer to 48 volts and it can fluctuate a few volts high and low and I don't think that will substantially affect the signal if everything else is working okay.

The real work in the phone networks are in the switching circuits, and that is where you have to concentrate a lot of your maintenance, at the "headend" with T1 switches, routers, ect. So there is where you need to concentrate some of the highly-trained people.

[TexasProgresive]

40. I guess you think that all there is to a fiber network is a bunch

of glass fibers. Wrong. There are sophisticated terminals at each end which break out the fiber signals to T3 and T1 levels. These terminals are basically computer controlled with protection (spares) at low speed levels and dual equipment to carry the load automatically if one side fails. Often the fiber networks are arraigned in a self healing "Ring" If a break is sensed in the ring the signals will be automatically routed around through the other nodes.

The nodes also containing digital cross connects that allow signals to be routed within the node to where ever they need to go. I guess a trained chimp could do it. I' nominate the BabyBitch.

[ngant17]

48. fiber connection

The ONTs ( a plastic box that connects the fiber signals into 3 parts, one for voice, date and video) which I used to install for the fiber-to-the-home connections were made in China. If they went bad, it was a remove-and-replace operation. BTW the terminals were not "sophisticated", you just plug them in a certain way. You have to be a little gentle with fiber because it's brittle like glass and it will snap it you bend it too much the wrong way.

You need an expensive OTDR (optical time-domain reflectometer) for testing the signals in fiber. A flashlight will work for continuity but not signal strength which is measured in dBs.

There were people doing the installs who probably didn't graduate high school and I don't think there were very bright even if they did have some basic computer skills.

I wanted to bring in a union(CWA) and the North Carolina company fired me, because a lot of companies in NC are rabidly anti-union. That's why I don't think Sen. Edwards will be a good candidate for prez.

BTW read a link here about my work in telecommunications <http://geocities.com/ngant17/union1.htm>

[TexasProgresive]

52. You're talking about FTTP

I'm talking about the major fiber systems that connect Central Offices to each other and major backbones. It's not simple-each fiber is carrying many circuits not just dumping video, internet and pots to a subscriber.

A question, Have you ever been inside a major central office, in particular one that is a class 4/5 office? That means it switches local service and also is a tandem switch which interconnects other local offices to the world.

[ngant17]

53. in your case, highly-trained techs would be needed

In my previous telecom work, FTTP or "fiber-to-the-premise" as some call it, I don't recall being in anything other than residential-type headends, which in my case were built around new housing developments and they were not what you would call pure commercial systems.

I met some people who had extensive experience in T1 maintenance, and I would definitely call them skilled telecom workers.

T1s, T3s, and class 4/5 systems are outside my league so I can't comment on that aspect of telecommuncations.

I would have liked to move up to the skill levels to which you are referring, but I'm moving on in a different direction now and not dwelling on the past.

Basically I don't see a problem with nationalizing the telecom industry like Chavez is doing now in Venezuela. If they can do it successfully in Latin America, there is no reason we can not do the same here.

[stevekatz]

44. POTS

is a dieing technoligy, which is exactly why we don't need government taking over our phone system

[ngant17]

49. I beg to differ

because for one thing, POTS supplies its own voltages so in the case of a power outage, you can still have POTS because the phone company isn't hooked into the 120v power grid.

If you have VOIP without a BBU for temp. power, your high-speed connection won't work. Because VOIP depends on 120 volts AC to supply current to the computer.

Sure, cell phones are great not as cheap as a land line. My monthly POTS phone bill is still less than a cell phone.

For those reasons, I don't see POTS going away anytime soon. POTS should be cheaper than it is, IMHO.

[Radical Activist]

11. centralized bureaucracies are the problem

whether privately or publicly owned.

[TahitiNut]

12. Physical infrastructure (transmission lines, towers, residential) ...yes.

Wherever public lands or easements over/under private lands are used to construct the physical infrastructure, I'm opposed to granting private corporations such an entitlement. I'm a proponent of all such infrastructure being managed and operated by a public entity, either an agency or a public enterprise like the USPS which is forever and always 'owned' by the people in common and 100% under public control. It's quite another thing to grant access to that infrastructure to private entities to compete in offering services - and to hire private corporations, on a competitive bid basis, to provide certain construction. The ongoing regular operations and maintenance, however, should be performed by public employees - there's NO SENSE whatsoever in taxpayers paying profit overheads for ongoing and regular operations, imho.

[Nikia]

13. Just the opposite

Of both Nationalized or profit making organizations.
http://www.ntca.org/ka/ka-2.cfm?Folder_ID=44
I went to a high school that was served by a rural cooperative. I graduated in 1996. Pay phones in town were still 10 cents. As I understand it, the company was managed well but prohibited from making a profit so it improved service and made things less expensive.

[patrice]

14. Public TV, Public Radio, Public Post Office, Public Telephone Co.

and Public Broadband.

[akushuki]

15. the major phone companies have become so big they

are, in organization, bureaucracies.

Making a bigger one out of all of them, would make them suck more.

[leftofthedial]

17. we should nationalize everything

the capitalists have provent hat they have contempt for everyone and everything on earth except their own money

[MonkeyFunk]

18. No

do you really think the Government would give us better, cheaper service?

Being overpaid is your criterion for nationalizing something? Let's nationalize the movie industry! Sports!

[OKNancy]

19. No. Name one utility as reliable and cheap

as the telephone?

[TahitiNut]

21. Water and sewer.

:shrug:

[Pavulon]

22. Mine

seems to constantly be dumping millions of gallons of shit into local rivers. County can get away with it of course. Where else can i get water from.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Neither of which

actually require much innovation. What was the last new feature you got from the water company?

If it were private, we'd have beer on tap by now.

[TahitiNut]

37. What part of "reliable and cheap" wasn't clear to you?

I responded to the question.
You want "new features"? Ask for them. :shrug: It's YOUR utility.

Funny thing about that service ... you can connect faucets with those "new features" any time you want. You can connect toilets with "new features" any time you want.

That what I want for telecommunications -- a municipal "pipe."

If the telecommunications industry were providing water and sewage, they'd NEVER be able to bury the sewer lines and water lines ... and my ass would get wet half the time I sat down and took a crap.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. OK

you're right. For affordability and reliability, the LOCAL water and sewer utitily is hard to beat.

But if the Feds ran it, I suspect my toilet would flush into my washing machine and I would be required to take an annual fluoridation test.

But as to the larger question posed in the OP, I think the notion is ridiculous. Competition has driven great improvements in communications technology.

Phone companies are not like water utilities. The technology changes almost daily, and we have myriad choices which have served consumers well. I don't see how one, holy, catholic and apostolic phone company run by the government could match that.

[quinnox]

24. yes

America should do everything to become a country like Venezuela, the greatest democracy in the world.

[deadmessengers]

28. I like the idea of being able to fire them.

In the last 5 years, I've had to fire 3 phone companies (1 local, 1 long distance, 1 mobile) for crappy service. Competition is just about the only thing that keeps them honest. With a single government monopoly, if you don't get decent service, you're free to... well... immigrate? :shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Of course. Utilities should belong to the people.

Reason: I'm a socialist (left-libertarian aka anarchist) that believes in socialism.

[originalpckelly]

32. What about reply #4, and the point made there?

I think it's a pretty good argument against this. If Bush is doing it now, imagine how easy it would be for him if we nationalized things?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Same set of bosses.

To believe that the capitalists that own the phone companies won't/aren't liable to monitor usage is living in fantasyland.

Given a choice between government control or corporate control, I'll risk government ineptitude over corporate efficiency.

[LostInAnomie]

31. Nope, but we should nationalize the energy sector.

Phone companies offer a relatively cheap, accessible product that isn't a necessity to purchase. Energy companies on the other hand have a strangle hold over us and our country's policies.

[Tyo]

35. I agree. Something has to be done about them

Keep them private but regulate them in the same way that public utilities are (or used to be) regulated? The energy folks have proved time and time again that they need some serious watching over.

[RB TexLa]

36. That will be the day the oil and gas extracted from my land start being sold to

a company outside of the US.

[Tyo]

33. No, but we need some rationalization too

Speaking mainly of cell phones, competition is good in some important ways, but competing networks have hindered rather than fostered innovation in this country. From what I've seen our cell phones are rather unreliable toys compared to what is available to the average teenager in Europe, Korea, and Japan.

I think part of their advantage is that they settled on some basic standards so that the various companies weren't each forced to reinvent the wheel and could focus on the improving and expanding the products and services available.

[Neshanic]

39. No, but no more consolidations, or we will be back to square one.

[Solon]

41. Considering that 90% of the infrastructure was paid in taxes, I say we should have some...

say in HOW the infrastructure and technology is implemented.

[RoyGBiv]

46. 90%?

I'm certain you know you're pulling that percentage out of thin air. I guess it partly depends on how you define infrastructure.

Of course a significant percentage of the physical infrastructure of the bell systems were paid for with taxes, so I agree with the basic idea we should have some say in how the technology is implemented. Rights-of-way are still an issue as well that dictates "the people" have a voice in regulating the companies that benefit from this. Phone companies are regulated, heavily, and that regulation should continue and in fact become more stringent than it has been allowed to be over the last decade or so.

Nationalization is another animal entirely.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Beyond essential services (and IMO that includes healthcare) I dislike the idea of nationalization

The Labour Party in the UK tried selective nationalization for decades and not only was it a miserable failure, it gave them Margaret Thatcher.

The trouble is that the Democrats in the US simultaneously thought it was a good idea to move to the center when they had never been nearly as far left as the Labour Party in Britain to begin with.

As far as the telecom industry goes, regulate it and do some Teddy Roosevelt style trust busting if necessary. Unregulated monopolies suck for everyone except for the people that own them. Nationalizing too many industries leads to problems of its own, not the least of which is the government having too much power (as someone pointed up there with the NSA comment). Industries that are properly regulated and have real competition are ideal.

[RoyGBiv]

45. Hell, no ...

Regulate them to the hilt.

"Nationalizing" phone service is insane.

[Thothmes]

47. Nationalized Telephone System

I voted no. I would not want the phone system managed by the ilk of bureaucrats that manage federal agencies such as FEMA

[NewJeffCT]

50. Phone service is cheaper now than it was under Ma Bell

especially long-distance service. Back before AT&T was broken up, long distance calls were something people did only in emergencies or on special occasions. Now, my wife can talk to her family in China for less than 2 cents/minute, or for free if we use Skype and talk over the computer. I'm guessing that 20 years ago, it was probably like $2/minute.

I do think other things should be nationalized - health care, energy, infrastructure (highways, power grid, etc) water. But, as another poster said, the technology is changing so rapidly that the competition has generally helped the average consumer.

[sendero]

51. Nationalizing...

... would not lower prices or improve service.

On the other hand, strong anti-trust enforcement, disallowing msot of the mergers that have happened over the last 5-7 years, would.

American businessmen love to talk about competition, but most of them spend most of their energy not in trying to serve the consumer better for a lower price, but in trying to eliminate competition so they can raise prices.

[LSK]

54. what problem would that solve in particular?? CEOs are overpaid regardless

of the industry they are in. Why address the phone companies before the media companies and/or energy companies???

[mmonk]

55. No, they already help spy on us.