Hey Vermont, Stop “Protecting” Me!
Posted by Alex R. Knight III on Aug 19, 2009 in Commentary • 2 commentsHere in rural Vermont, high-speed Internet service is not yet universally available. So it was with great pleasure that in late 2007 I was able to switch from Earthlink’s 56k dialup service to Verizon DSL broadband. Last year, Verizon’s interest in landline telephone and Internet service in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, was bought out by a North Carolina company, FairPoint Communications. Thus, this firm now provides such services to my home.
It seems that subsequently, due to a snafu associated with FairPoint commandeering Verizon’s old computer systems in order to assure continuity of service, numerous complaints from customers across Vermont have prompted, according to the Rutland Herald of August 11, the following:
“Vermont regulators told FairPoint Communications Monday they have 30 days to explain why their authority to continue operating in the state shouldn’t be taken away.
“The Vermont Public Service Board told officials with the North Carolina company that they must respond by Sept. 10 to concerns expressed by state officials over their handling of Verizon’s former business here in the state.
“FairPoint took over Verizon’s Internet and landline services in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine last year, but since switching over to their computer system early in 2009, a host of problems – from late service to incorrect bills – have emerged.
“Last month, the Vermont Department of Public Service, the state entity that represents consumers, filed a petition with the Public Service Board, the regulators of telecommunication companies, to investigate why FairPoint should be allowed to continue operating in the state.”
Let’s slow down just a little to see the woods for the trees (we are talking Vermont, after all), shall we?
I’d like to know how it is that politicians and bureaucrats have any say in what company or companies I, or any other consumer or trader, choose to do business with. I’ve personally encountered no problems with my Internet or phone service outside of the usual small and temporary glitches associated with any Internet connection, and my bills have always been correct and timely. However, others have apparently experienced otherwise. Can those others honestly say that the solution is tax-financed government intervention? Has anyone ever heard of simply switching companies, as is one of the beauties and essential features of a market economy?
Oh, wait a minute…you say that only FairPoint is available in your neck of Vermont? Or that, yes, there are other communications companies, but that only FairPoint provides broadband? Well say, did you ever wonder why that might be? Might it be that the Vermont Department of Public Service has been stealing your money in order to deliberately limit your choices? Think of the arrogance of presuming to be “the state entity that represents consumers.” The VDPS can’t possibly represent all of the different likes, dislikes, and preferences of hundreds of thousands of Vermonters, any more than any of Vermont’s politicians ever can. VDPS sure doesn’t represent me, I can tell you that – especially when they propose to shut down, by threat of violent force no less, a company with whom I am perfectly content to remain a customer — and prevent or hamper others from endeavoring to compete in the marketplace through coercive regulations and control mechanisms.
But this condition is endemic of government. They are determined to “protect” you – and steal your money under threat of violence to boot in order to do it – whether you desire that kind of “protection,” or any “protection” at all, for that matter. I’ll take companies like FairPoint Communications — occasional warts, shortfalls and all — over government any day. If, in the future, FairPoint pisses me off too much, I at least know I can just walk away from them. When that point is widely appreciated enough, we’ll all be able to just walk away from government as well.
C4SS News Analyst Alex R. Knight III is an author of horror, science fiction, and fantasy tales, living and writing in rural southern Vermont. He is the author of Victoria's Place and Other Tales of Terror (BareBones Publishing, 2008), and numerous other works, including non-fiction and poetry. He is also a regular contributor to the libertarian journal Strike The Root.






They aren't stealing your money. If you did not have broadband, you would not pay the tax that goes with having broadband. By buying a regulated service, you consent to the charge. Theft is taking your money without your consent.
The likely reason for the monopoly, by the way, is because the infrastructure for the service is in the public space. Even when the public airwaves are used for wireless broadband, the decision still lies in the public sector.
Finally, even though you have not had any difficulties, others have. They have petitioned for their government for recourse and the government is responding in a way to get the service provider's attention. At least their action shows that they are awake and earning their fee. Have some compassion for those who are actually having difficulties. The universe does not revolve around you.
I see, so then it's perfectly all right for government to regulate and tax every such service, regardless of the provider, and then we have merely have to decide whether we wish to purchase the service under those terms — or go entirely without in order to not support government. Where did you acquire such logic, Michael? From a box of Froot Loops?
As to the location of infrastructure, in a stateless society, there would be no "public" (government-owned) land or other real estate. All would be in private hands. So either the service providers would own it, or they would contract with the owner(s) and pass the costs along with the provision of service. From there, market competition and supply and demand drive the costs down to stable levels. No regulation, no taxation.
Lastly, your suggestion that I'm somehow being selfish by disadvocating a violent monopoly that decides who shall and who shall not be permitted to provide goods and services on a market basis is laughable foolishness. And I wonder, on the basis of that, just who is lacking in "compassion."
Michael, as an adjunct, I have noticed that every post you have contributed to this site has been statist in nature, and apologetic towards the existence of government. You even once admitted that you believe anarchism will never happen. Your sympathies and attitudes seem to be 180 degrees away from those that are actively promoted on this site and by this center. So I must ask: Why in hell do you continue to make an ass out of yourself here? There are plenty of other places online to espouse your aggressive and domineering views. I'm of course all in favor of free speech, and if you want to keep posting, post away — just don't be disappointed when I stop wasting my valuable time by not responding.