Google's Cerf: Baby Bells Act Like Tots Having Tantrums > Agree 100%

reply to KrK

Re: Agree 100%

Absolutely it is the truth. I can point to several examples. Immediately after the TA1996 Act, my current ISP (a great one) called ioNET announced plans to move into highspeed, DSL and dedicated IP, phone service lines. Way before SBC.

They spend a lot of money upgrading and buying equipment are adhering to regulations. SBC blocked them at every turn, and never let them deploy. They stalled them for 3 years.

Meanwhile SBC didn't offer DSL here.... They kept trying to sell ISDN and T-1 lines.... Until Cox cable begin introducing "Cox@home". Then suddenly SBC began rushing to to get DSL on the market... at the very, very end of 1999 it came into limited availability. I was one of the first 25 people in the city to get it.... 3 years after ioNET had prequalified me for it.

That's just purely from my experience.

Classic case of competition forcing the incumbent to get off it's ass and do something.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

How's that an example of a leech? SBC/whatever baby bell you get service from, got the tax dollars to deploy broadband AND their monopoly on infrastructure in exchange for playing by certain RULES... including, in 1996, letting competing ISP's use their infrastructure. Ideally, that last mile ought to be the government's, and they should lease the lines to any ISP/telco, including the ILEC. Unfortunately, money will always change hands, and at the end of the day, it's the consumer that gets screwed...