 
neosolace
Stay In It
join:2003-08-25
Verbena, AL | crap... wow....I guess they won't have to worry about pushing for deployments now that they don't have that darn competition to worry about.  | |
|
 | lovewomen
join:2003-08-07
Springfield, VA | Re: crap... I think it's good that the FCC gave the "Bell" companies the same rights it gave the cable companies. Now let's see them fight it out for the best they can do for us. | |
|
| | 
schmol
join:2001-12-26
Windsor, PA | Re: crap... The bad thing is, the little dsl companies that are sharing the bell's copper/fiber network will now be charged whatever the bells want to charge them. I see alot of these companies going out of business...or this is what I got from the report. | |
|
| | | gnexus
join:2005-06-24
| Re: crap... This is BAD!
I worked for a small independent ISP back when DSL began in Houston. The cost of access to a T1 or DS-3 was horrendous back then (it still is in many respects). The reason for that was the ILEC SBC and the lack of competition.
Opening up the lines to DSL competition allowed us to use SDSL for additional bandwidth and keep providing service to thousands of lower-income customers. That ISP has long since shut down due to the Telecom crash of the late 90s/2000. The availability of competing DSL has grown, however, and allowed thousands to have broadband who could have never afforded it otherwise.
This ruling will kill that and the availiablity of SDSL. The FCC and the current administration are attempting all sorts of regulatory and legislative manuevers to put control of broadband and VoIP back into the hands of big telecom.
One example is the E911 ruling for VoIP, which adds profit to the coffers of the ILECS that help manage the 911 system. Another example is SB 1583. This would tack on a regulatory USF fee for broadband and VoIP and is directly transferred to the ILECs, purportedly for better access, which of course never occurs. | |
|
| | | | |
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| The RBOCs never considered Independent ISPs to be their real competitor. They considered cable to be the target. Same with cable.
The competition remains the same from the RBOCs perspective. Now they just have less "dead weight" as they'd consider it. | |
|
| 
orldf
@157.93.x.x
| FYI we paid for the cable infrastructure too. This kind of stinks for competition but I'd like to see how it goes before saying it's all bad. The regulations nightmare and the nest of "can do" "can't do" rules and regs was outrageous. Think of it like the IRS only worse.
There will be reselling competition too, mind you. And there is wireless and possibly newer technologies with very little cost of deployment. The company that figures out how to beat the cost of deployment issue could well put a bite onto the big Comcast/Verizon folks, long before they've paid off the investment they've spent.
Overall I rather wish they'd put some requirements in place, like "no higher than you'd charge an end customer" which right now they could do, charge a reseller more than an end user would pay. But what bugged me more was ruling the cable company didn't have to share, and then maybe making the bells have to share, which would have been very wrong.
I don't work for either, and am avidly awaiting FIOS myself.
Have to see how this works out in practicality, because it could well be very different from the theory of "the world ending".
$.02 | |
|
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
1 edit | Oh-oh This isn't good.
Have consumers been asleep - anyone write to the FCC on this?
It's time to roar.
The conservative religious folks got tens of thousands of people to write in to complain about Janet Jackson's breast, and fines were increased tenfold.
Broadband users need the same sort of organization - a large email and website campaign "Save Broadband" - that mobilizes American citizens. The threat is dire.
-Dane | |
|
| |
| | zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Edmonton, AB
 ·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Oh-oh i'm in favor, just because i think resellers are lame. They want to cut into the market, without assuming any risk.
How is broadband technology supposed to leap forward, if the big telco's have to put up all the risk, but share the rewards.
I think competition has to come from somewhere else, maybe the continued presence of WIFI?
competition using the same lines, and CO, and portal, thats not really competition. Maybe the resellers offer better prices, but what good is that if the people who shell out for the technology don't think they'll profit from making the system better? | |
|
| | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: Oh-oh said by zod5000  :I think competition has to come from somewhere else, maybe the continued presence of WIFI? There already is competition, they just don't want to admit that competition isn't the magic bullet that makes prices fall to $9.99 a month for 40000/40000. Did I mention that most people are cheap.
I agree that we the people got screwed in that we fronted the money to build a company's infrastructure, but that happened a long time ago and was the fault of politicians who saw an easy way to keep everyone happy without caring/thinking about the economic damage it would cause. This is a case of there being no 100% right solution for a problem that shouldn't have been in the first place.
I doubt anyone will see any major changes in the near future, most companies like the stability a reseller provides.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! | |
|
| | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Oh-oh said by Combat Chuck :said by zod5000 :I think competition has to come from somewhere else, maybe the continued presence of WIFI? There already is competition, they just don't want to admit that competition isn't the magic bullet that makes prices fall to $9.99 a month for 40000/40000. Did I mention that most people are cheap. I agree that we the people got screwed in that we fronted the money to build a company's infrastructure, but that happened a long time ago and was the fault of politicians who saw an easy way to keep everyone happy without caring/thinking about the economic damage it would cause. This is a case of there being no 100% right solution for a problem that shouldn't have been in the first place. A-freaking-men.
--
When there is nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire. | |
|
| | | | watchd0g
join:2004-08-02
Burgettstown, PA
| the clecs put up plenty of risk.
a. they have to pay for space at the big bells telco.
b. they have to pay the Bell to run the new copper line from the pole to your home or business
c. they have buy and maintain their own equipment and bandwitdh.
d. they have to market it so you know its there to buy
e. they have to maintain a qualified staff (more jobs)
the clecs got no free ride, They were allowed to run their service down the same lines as the Big boys that's all, the same way other long distance (and now local service) companies can offer their services over the big Bells copper.
And lets not forget that the big boys all got huge tax incentives form municipalities to run those lines anyways. | |
|
| | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Oh-oh The biggest cost of copper is keeping it maintained. And that in itself is 3/8 of your bill every month. So to say that they are really throwing that cash into the wind on the business is an understatement.
Also realize that the cost of maintaining all the copper is on the bells not the isp. And Maintaining that pushes the % of your bill used for maintenance to well over 3/4. Bandwidth and staff for these places is a the cheapest costs. Labor is and always will be the highest cost of business.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| said by zod5000 :i'm in favor, just because i think resellers are lame. They want to cut into the market, without assuming any risk. You don't think spending money on co-location in the CO, backhauls from that CO, DSLAMs, maintenance and the fees paid to use the copper represent any risk?? | |
|
| | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Oh-oh said by sporkme :said by zod5000 :i'm in favor, just because i think resellers are lame. They want to cut into the market, without assuming any risk. You don't think spending money on co-location in the CO, backhauls from that CO, DSLAMs, maintenance and the fees paid to use the copper represent any risk?? A lot smaller then what the telcos pay out in maintenance.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | Tobester
join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA
| said by zod5000 :i'm in favor, just because i think resellers are lame. They want to cut into the market, without assuming any risk. How is broadband technology supposed to leap forward, if the big telco's have to put up all the risk, but share the rewards. competition using the same lines, and CO, and portal, thats not really competition. Maybe the resellers offer better prices, but what good is that if the people......(edited for brevity) I don't know how things are done up in British Columbia, Canada, but here in the old' USA, the previous regulation of Ma Bell provided the phone company with a guaranteed rate of return and capital investments to lay down all the copper wire for the 'last mile' link to our homes with very little risk.
Consequently, the American public has paid for the copper infrastructure used by DSL, AND has a vested interest in keeping the field level for all DSL providers.
The Bell operating companies (RBOC) are supposed to be charging their own subsidiaries the same 'access pricing' as the DSL resellers.
I think my reseller DSL service, provided through COVAD, is excellent!
Remember, this new FCC decision is regarding DSL access to structural assets the American public has paid for, not for access to the planned fiber networks.
Two different species, I think. 
This FCC decision has been purchased by the RBOC's Capitol Hill lobbying and is the best money can buy!!
With our current Congress, White House, and FCC it's "just show me the money." | |
|
| | | | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: Oh-oh said by Tobester :... This FCC decision has been purchased by the RBOC's Capitol Hill lobbying and is the best money can buy!! ... Word! This decision was the same as saying, "Yes! I want to work for you after I leave government service, thank you very much for the job offer."
said by Tobester :With our current Congress, White House, and FCC it's "just show me the money." BS! It has nothing at all to do with "current". It is just "business as usual" in Washington D.C. home of the most expensive prostitutes on the planet.
--
Improve your wireless signal! | |
|
| 
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by DaneJasper :It's time to roar. This is the problem, to much reacting and not enough acting. I think it's a bit late at this point to do anything.
--
All your base are belong to us! fRiTz+Nomad+/N|fRiTz | |
|
| cubedude
join:2003-08-11
Katy, TX
| I called!
1-888-225-5322 - FCC Toll-Free number
(202) 418-1000 - Kevin Martin
(202) 418-2400 - Abernathy Kathleen
(202) 418-2000 - Michael Copps
(202) 418-2300 - Jonathan Adelstein
Call them! Even if you live on the opposite side of the country, and few minutes won't cost that much!
I called Kevin Martin and the main line, and if they get enough calls, they just might start noticing!
It's ten little digits. Go punch 'em into your phone right now! | |
|
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | Re: Oh-oh said by cubedude :I called! 1-888-225-5322 - FCC Toll-Free number (202) 418-1000 - Kevin Martin (202) 418-2400 - Abernathy Kathleen (202) 418-2000 - Michael Copps (202) 418-2300 - Jonathan Adelstein Call them! Even if you live on the opposite side of the country, and few minutes won't cost that much! I called Kevin Martin and the main line, and if they get enough calls, they just might start noticing! It's ten little digits. Go punch 'em into your phone right now! And tell them what, exactly. That you are sitting at your computer pouting?
This debate has been going on for years. All you are to them is Friday afternoon entertainment. Unless, of course, you have a couple $million to donate to the party of your choice. In that case Kev may invite you to play golf.
--
When there is nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire. | |
|
| |
| 
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | too little, too late. all i can say is that this decision was wayyyyy past due.
--
I am not Herbert. | |
|
| 
Madness
Like a flea circus at a dog show.
join:2000-01-05
Quincy, MA | Tell me, did anyone write to the FCC 21 years ago when they ripped apart Ma Bell? Might be just me, but I feel a major sense of deja vu. | |
|
| | 
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA | Re: Oh-oh I just might be too young to know but who is Ma Bell? | |
|
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Oh-oh said by FTCXtreme :I just might be too young to know but who is Ma Bell? Prior to 1984, all phone service in the USA, local and long distance, was provided by the one Bell Telephone company. This company was nicknamed "Ma Bell." There was a federal court case the result of which was to split this company up into several smaller regional monopolies which provided local phone service and allowed for any company to provide long distance service. The long distance part of "Ma Bell" became AT&T. The local companies became known as the "Baby Bells."
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| I can tell you things where really different when Ma Bell had you by the gonads. Just one example of this was a group of ham radio operators in California who started to use the then new touch pads from tone phones to remotely control repeaters and other remote radio stations. Ma bell got wind of this and hauled the experimenters into court and charged them illegally using their proprietary tones and with then trying to rip off phone service. This was total crap but the Ma Bell prevailed in court and the Hams where nailed to the wall.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. | |
|
| | 
needforspeed59
Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ
| said by Madness :Tell me, did anyone write to the FCC 21 years ago when they ripped apart Ma Bell? Might be just me, but I feel a major sense of deja vu. If I remember correctly, it was not the FCC. It was called the Consent Decree by a Federal judge. Judge Green, I think.
--
Of all the people I know... you're one of them. | |
|
| | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: Oh-oh The Modified Final Judgement. And once SBC and Verizon merge after one of them gobbles up Qwest, it'll have been fully reversed. Judge Green died in 2000, he's probably spinning in his grave. | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by DaneJasper :This isn't good. Have consumers been asleep - anyone write to the FCC on this? It's time to roar. The time to "roar" was at the ballot box in Nov. 2004.
As John McCain has recently said (in so manny words), the side of big corporations won the election. Everything political, like this, that's occured since has been as a result. If you don't like it, too bad, they're in power now. You should have done more before the elections. Now we'll just have to live with all the consequences. | |
|
| | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | Re: Oh-oh Yes, but he appeared on stage with them. Kind of messes with his credability now. | |
|
| |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | said by PDXPLT :The time to "roar" was at the ballot box in Nov. 2004. Bull sheite... Washington is no less, or more corrupt than it has been for the past fifty years.
said by PDXPLT :As John McCain has recently said (in so manny words), the side of big corporations won the election. Everything political, like this, that's occured since has been as a result. If you don't like it, too bad, they're in power now. You should have done more before the elections. Now we'll just have to live with all the consequences. John may have said that, or not, you need to go back and read your history. Big business owns both parties. Hell, Gates slept in the same bed that Lewinski did, didn't he? 
--
Improve your wireless signal! | |
|
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA | Stock to buy Trango Wireless
Alverion
Waverider
I don't know if any of these companies are public but I know that are local wisp has been shipping radios out a Whole new door! | |
|
SteveMosher
Premium
join:2005-01-18
Modesto, CA
| CRAP! This is complete and uber bullcrap.
Great for the company and to hell with what the customer wants.
Thanks FCC for screwing up!
I know its to early to ask of course, but,
What happens now to people already signed up with CLECs and if they would like to stay with those CLECs?
--
--Mosher
»www.tclshack.com | |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
Bananasanyone
@comcast.net | ....It passed like ....A fart in the wind! How does it feel living in a banana republic? | |
|
BigCreek
God Is Good.
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Heber Springs, AR
| Yippie! Maybe now SBC will deploy DSL in this area. They wouldn't before because of the well-intended but contrived attempt at competition.
If the FCC keeps doing rational things like this I may have to change my opinion of them.
--
SBC Pro Static DSL; Linux. Terrific wife & kids; live on a farm by Big Creek. Software & network consultant. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
komal
join:2003-02-16 | OMG we're so stupid Who knew that killing indie ISPs was good for competition?! | |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | just what they need Just more money in the telco's pocket what they where wanting in the first place. Even without a regulatory they still will not deploy dsl anymore.
Goes to show you if you got money(telcos) we will make it so easy on you. | |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
1 edit | (USF) How much longer for us !?? "The commissioners decided to require DSL providers to continue for nine months to pay into the universal service fund (USF), which subsidizes communications services in certain cases, unless a new funding system is developed sooner."
Who wants to bet that "We" the customer keeping paying this rip off far beyond the 9 MO the Telcos "have to pay" into it? This has been nice extra pocket change for the Telcos for a while now. Think they will give it up ?
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. | |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | Something to watch: USF quote:
The commissioners decided to require DSL providers to continue for nine months to pay into the universal service fund (USF), which subsidizes communications services in certain cases, unless a new funding system is developed sooner.
I'll assume that means the elimination of USF fees on your bill after that 9 month period (probably assuming too much). How likely is it you'll see the elimination of the bogus "regulatory recovery fee" on your bill as well? (What regulation is there to recover from now?)
Would it be too cynical of me to wager that - despite the bells having to pay out less to the USF - that consumers will see no price reduction whatsoever?
Edit: I see Mactron had the same thought at the same time... | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: Get em! said by SteveMosher :» www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.htmlI was informed from the FCC offices that you need to fill out some forms if you want to complain online. Feel free to be heard. Unless you have $thousands and $thousands to contribute to election campaigns, feel free to be ignored.
I can't believe anyone here is surprised by this, and am greatly amused that you think calling an FCC secretary (as in answers the phone for his/her boss) or filling out an online form is going to do anything other than vent your spleen. They've heard it all before and will route to voicemail as soon as you start ranting.
What a bunch of maroons...
--
When there is nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire. | |
|
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| Good This is good. Why should a phone company build the network yet be forced to share it? If you built a phone company with your money, would you want the government telling you other companies must be allowed access at cheap prices to take away your profits.
If ISPs want to compete with SBC, they must build their own network. | |
|
|
See 22 replies to this post |
|
Gandalf1315
Freelance Philosopher
join:2001-05-23
Indianapolis, IN
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
| Here is the reality folks Our Government quit being "for the people by the people" a long time ago. It has been "for the corporation by the corporation" for decades.
And there is NOTHING we can do about it. Uncle Sam does what it wants regardless of what the people want. If voting could really change things they would make that illegal too.
Welcome to The United Dictatorship of America.
--
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.--- Benjamin Franklin | |
|
| Micah996
join:2005-07-26
El Dorado, AR
| Re: Here is the reality folks LOL I love it in these threads go off topic.
Look at it like this: You build a nice house on your land. The "big bad" government shows up one day and says, "wow, that's a nice house, thanks for building it for us now you need to "rent" out 2 rooms to this guy here. Oh by the way you can only charge him 40% of the going rate." Yeah... sure...
Back on topic:
I have worked on both sides of this coin (a CLEC and an IXC) and this is not a bad thing. There will be some fall out. Some regional monopolies will get stronger while others will weaken. Competition will come via cable and wireless, maybe not as fast as some would like. I think it's better to let the RBOC's expand with out having one arm tied behind their backs. CLEC's where NEVER a threat just an annoyance, the cable systems are what has them worried.
But the sky is not falling, besides its 2005 and I still don't have my flying car!  | |
|
| |
neosolace
Stay In It
join:2003-08-25
Verbena, AL | Re: Here is the reality folks That would be the case if only the GOVERNMENT hadn't helped you pay for a good portion of your construction cost.... | |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Cox HSI
·Time Warner Cable
| Yawn Who cares. The DSL market was contrived by regulators, built and supported by the ILECs. I wouldn't use a 3rd party ISP or CLEC because I don't want to deal with the middleman. If you can't get DSL from the ILEC, you can't get it from Earthlink either. You don't need to worry about the ILECs going bankrupt. People who live in areas that DSL has not been deployed in should cheer the fcc for creating more incentives for broadband to deploy there. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
dick white
Premium
join:2000-03-24
Annandale, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Monopoly behavior... Contrary to the public perception, monopolists (the railroads, the steel and oil cartels, AT&T, Microsoft even?) don't raise prices to outrageous levels just to gouge the customers more. They usually don't stifle innovation either - consider the invention/perfection of the transistor by MaBell... What happens is service goes to hell. As Lily Tomlin put it in her Ernestine The Telephone Operator skit - "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."
That's where this will go. You don't like the ineffective tech support when your email goes dead? "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." Who are you going to call now?
dw | |
|
| 
loadmaster
join:2001-01-10
San Jose, CA
| Re: Monopoly behavior... There are a lot of non-bell DSL providers that provide excellent service and tech support. This is really what we will ALL lose because of this STUPID decision. Call SBC and talk to someone overseas that is trained to read from a script and does not have any technical trouble shooting skills. Don't like the service, TOO BAD!  | |
|
| RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by dick white :Who are you going to call now? dw Umm...the cable company? | |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Dems dissapoint.... The Dems on the Commission essentially cut a deal.
Reading Copp's statement is enough to make a person puke. He essentially says "I did this now to preserve USF--so all of my friends with inefficient companies will continue to get their cash injection from slush funds, and all of my socialist programs to redistribute wealth will continue to grow."
So not only do we get DSL monopoly, we continue to fund cheap phone service for people who live in the cheapest areas of the nation--rural territory. In other words, we take one of the few cost advantages to living in a dense area (lower cost to provide telephone service) and spread it around through subsidies to people who live in the country and can buy a 3 bed/2 bath house for $75,000.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Dems dissapoint.... said by calvoiper :The Dems on the Commission essentially cut a deal. Reading Copp's statement is enough to make a person puke. He essentially says "I did this now to preserve USF--so all of my friends with inefficient companies will continue to get their cash injection from slush funds, and all of my socialist programs to redistribute wealth will continue to grow." So not only do we get DSL monopoly, we continue to fund cheap phone service for people who live in the cheapest areas of the nation--rural territory. In other words, we take one of the few cost advantages to living in a dense area (lower cost to provide telephone service) and spread it around through subsidies to people who live in the country and can buy a 3 bed/2 bath house for $75,000. calvoiper Hey I agree with you 100%!! Come to Vermont to live, we have our very own USF (Universal School Fee) or as the State calls it ACT 60. Thanks to Dean my property taxes doubled in just 2 years due to the fact that the richer towns have to pay for the poorer towns schools. So all the little rural towns in Vermont now get some of my tax money so they can have similar stuff that the bigger towns schools have. I just love subsidizing towns that I have never even been to with my taxes!
Off topic sorry.....
Marckus | |
|
|
| sven555
join:2003-01-16
Littleton, CO
| Re: Broadband entitlements "(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement"
Now these are not "rules", these are "principles" but does this mean that someday cable companies will not be allowed to outlaw servers on their networks? | |
|
| | ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | Re: Broadband entitlements That was my first thought entirely! | |
|
RogerDucky
join:2002-01-04
Plano, TX
| Lesson on "Natural Monopolies" Every single time, people in support of "build your own network!" misses a few points:
If everyone were allowed to build their own network to everywhere in the country, then basically any time a new company starts up, you'd see people digging up your roads and sidewalks or stringing stuff on their own poles.
Even if you are willing to put up with never-ending construction, consider that there's only so much space people can put that whole mess of wires in before running out of room.
Telling each ISP to build their own infrastructure is like telling each and every commercial airline to build their own airport for each area they want to service. "But," one might say, "doesn't the airlines have to buy their own planes?"
Well, the competing ISPs have to have their own connection to the internet, and a decent enough data center to handle the traffic coming in and out of the last mile connection. So they're not getting a free ride at all.
So, the only sane solution is to allow infrastructure to be shared, but either:
1. Control the prices of the services so it doesn't get out of hand. (Reason of existence for PUCs in various states.)
2. Allow multiple service providers to compete across the same infrastructure. (Like the airlines do.) | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Lesson on "Natural Monopolies" Your airline analogy is excellent and I agree 100% but would go further in saying that the network needs to be just like an airport. That is only 1 of them and everyone else pays to use it.
Screw this my network, your network crap. Make it all one, controlled by one, and then ALL service providers can use it. | |
|
| | dick white
Premium
join:2000-03-24
Annandale, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Lesson on "Natural Monopolies" Agree, but here's the difference between the airport and phone system analogy. The airport authority owns the facilities and infrastructure (i.e., the airport) and will allow any airline to land there and use a terminal gate (in accordance with standard rules, payment of fees, maybe even bidding wars between airlines when there is a shortage of gate space, etc....). However, the airport authority is not in the business of transporting passengers from that airport to other airports via airplane. They don't really care what airlines use the airport or where those airlines are flying to/from.
In the teleco situation, the teleco owns the infrastructure (the C.O. and the cables on the street to your house) AND they are in the business of providing service over that infrastructure. Anybody else using that infrastructure is a loss of opportunity for the services side of the teleco business and must (in their view) be snuffed out. What we really need is for the telecos (as we know them now) to get out of the business of providing bundled services. Or if they want to be able to provide bundled services, then re-regulate the whole package so the public (through the PUC) can tell them that services provided to any one customer must be equitably available to all.
dw | |
|
| | | 
metrodust
Hey Thats Mine
join:1999-12-10
Seattle, WA
| Re: Lesson on "Natural Monopolies" said by dick white :In the teleco situation, the teleco owns the infrastructure (the C.O. and the cables on the street to your house) AND they are in the business of providing service over that infrastructure. Anybody else using that infrastructure is a loss of opportunity for the services side of the teleco business and must (in their view) be snuffed out. What we really need is for the telecos (as we know them now) to get out of the business of providing bundled services. Or if they want to be able to provide bundled services, then re-regulate the whole package so the public (through the PUC) can tell them that services provided to any one customer must be equitably available to all. dw not exactly. a reseller has their own gear, dslams, routers, switches etc. the only things shared are CO floor space and the physical wire to the customer.
--
When you are leaving.. heaven is a distance not a place. --Carissas Weird | |
|
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| I didnt say it would be cheap or easy, but the current fiber network needs to be purchased and expanded by the one entity that will provide the network. They can't provide services, they can only maintain and expand the network. Then the current Cable/Telco and anyone else that wants to provide a service may do so by leasing the lines. | |
|
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| I've always felt that the ultimate solution was for local governments to build infrastructure and then lease out the lines to whoever wants to use them at cost; screw regulation; just build it and let whoever wants to compete.
The problem is that people never want the government to spend big bucks on things that the government should be spending money on without an immediate benefit(ie: things that are impossible or impractical for every company to be expected to provide), and government is rarely able to exhibit restraint when they can easily bring in more money and appease impatient constituents by entering the marketplace (as evidenced in the recent Logan WiFi issue).
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! | |
|
erised
join:2005-08-05
Fort Lauderdale, FL
|  Useless Questions
...what happens if they don't come to an agreement?
...do the companies have to negotiate in true faith?
...what's to prevent the phone companies from requesting such an outrageous fee from the DSL providers that the providers feel it isn't worth it.
...since the amount the phone companies receive from the other DSL providers is only just a fraction (pennies on the dollar) of why wouldn't they want to just eliminate the middle man in the name of being "consumer friendly" thereby eliminating the competition. After all, they no longer have to share their lines.
But when you're the only game in town, I guess you can write your own rules, huh? Especially if you do it all in the name of protecting the consumer and giving the consumer the edge. Oh yes...we're getting the "edge", alright! | |
|
| 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
2 edits | Re: Useless Questions All of the "CLECS ARE GOING TO DIE" doomsayers crack me up. BellSouth signed their 100th PARTY NEGOTIATED agreement with resellers either late last year or early this year. That was long before this ruling.
What does that mean? It means that the so-called monopolists have worked with their "competition" (which is really cable, but that's another story) to negotiate rates that are good for both sides. I didn't see anyone going out of business. All we lose here is innovation-stifling faux-competition. It's ridiculous to say that the ILECs will somehow price their competition out of existence. Don't you think BellSouth might have done that already in the 100+ contracts they've worked out? | |
|
| |
innovate_this
@cruzio.com
| Re: Useless Questions Yeah....innovation stifling...whatever...what are you talking about? You sound like you are reciting a party line. How exactly have small ISPs been "stifling" innovation? We are the ones who have "beta tested" and improved SBC/ASI systems since the ASI/SBC split in 2000. Is PPPoE innovation? For the ISP maybe..but not for the customer. SBC has had the opportunity to offer Dry DSL **FOREVER** and hasn't. Believe me...this "innovation stifling" argument is way overused and a red herring....the party line should be "profit stifling".
If the small ISPs DIDN'T innovate, they wouldn't be around too long to even be able to compete against SBC, or whichever monster corporation you could be affiliated with. SBC keeps undercutting prices constantly, making profit margins barely worth it for small ISPs to continue...but the future is broadband, so swallow hard. | |
|
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| said by erised :But when you're the only game in town, I guess you can write your own rules, huh? Especially if you do it all in the name of protecting the consumer and giving the consumer the edge. Oh yes...we're getting the "edge", alright! I predict that in a year [or less] anyone who has Earthlink, AOL, and really anyone who has DSL [even if your provider has it's own network, and just uses the 'last mile' for connection], their rates will go up dramatically. While DSL from the ILEC's will be advertising 'great bargins'. And if you don't like their service, their support, too bad. Per the FCC's decision, they own the lines and while the should do better, will they? | |
|
| |
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Useless Questions When will people realize that the cable companies are the Bells competition, not the CLECs? The ILECs have absolutely no incentive to kill the CLECs - they're a constant stream of revenue. The cable companies will keep raising speeds and, until either fiber or advanced DSL is more readily available, the phone companies will only be able to compete in price. If they raise it too much, they'll lose customers (either their own or the CLECs) to cable. Then those customers are totally off of the phone system. There's so little logic in your arguments.
An example? BellSouth knew this ruling was coming and they just reduced prices on all of their DSL tiers and eliminated a bunch of startup fees. Let's get back to reality here, instead of just this knee-jerk "incumbents are pure evil" idiocy... | |
|
|
|
|
See todays earlier BBR news item for discussion
·