[svlug] NorthPoint ordered to restore CA customers for 30 days

[Smitty]

Erik Steffl wrote:
> 
> Smitty wrote:
> >
> > "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> > >
> > > on Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:05:26PM -0400, Smitty (76543a at mpinet.net) wrote:
> > > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Story of possible interest to those effected by the NorthPoint DSL
> > > > > shutdown.  Seems there's a law in California requiring 30 days' notice
> > > > > in the event of such cancellations of service, and the California PUC
> > > > > ordered the service restoration on Friday.  NorthPoint claims it's flat
> > > > > out of cash and can't comply.  Expect confusion to ensue and the little
> > > > > guy to get the short end of the stick.
> > > >
> > > > If, indeed, NP is broke, how are they supposed to continue service?  The
> > > > California People's Republic law is absurd in this case.  How are they
> > > > supposed to buy anything without money?
> > >
> > > NP was aquired by AT&T.  NP has obligations to its current debtors.  The
> > > company presumably has assets currently, just not enough to continue as
> > > a going concern.
> > >
> > > In any business, there are several different stakeholder constituencies.
> > > Typically, we hear of shareholders.  There are also creditors,
> > > employees, customers, and, sometimes, community (e.g.:  an oil
> > > refinery's obligations to its community stakeholders are probalby high
> > > when it comes to air, water, and land pollution issues).
> > >
> > > California state law here holds that the interests of customers precede
> > > those of creditors.  This isn't a change of state -- the creditors
> > > should have been aware of this risk when determining loan rates.  It's
> > > possible that the interests of customers accrue to the shareholder, in
> > > which case, AT&T may have to fund the service continuation (and/or be
> > > fined for any lapse).
> > >
> > > --
> > California seems to have too many of these onerous laws which put
> > utility services in precarious financial conditions.  The upshot is that
> > the consumer gets screwed by the state government via the utility.  Only
> > a free market brings the greatest benefit to the consumer.
> 
>   the irony is that the non free market is largely created by companies
> themselves trying to get the laws passed so that they profit. who do you
> think got the current laws related to electricity passed? well, PG&E

So why didn't the folks in California let their legislature pass them?
> 
>   it's not easy to have free market when the players of the market are
> the ones who can change the rules (and thus remove freedom when they see
> fit). you can see it happening al over the place - the ones we're
> probably most familiar with are dmca, ucita, and similar IP & software
> related laws but the laws of equal 'value' are all over the place (well,
> judging from my fairly limited knowledge of law in US)

I agree. 
> 
>   regarding to your response's relation to Karsten's comment - are you
> saying that companies should not be held reponsible for what they do and
> should not be bound by contracts they sign?

No, somehow you want to read that into what I stated. 
> 
>         erik