yazdzikPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
kudos:1 | Re: DSL ISPs get a warning Dear Friends at DSL reports,
While there is normally a conflict between rational expectation and consumer hopes, one must consider in the case of DSL the unique circumstances of both the consumer and the providers. Without creating a false analogy, one might try to compare DUN with DSL.
The dial-up connexion runs over telephone lines which are mandated to have a line quality to carry voice communications at a level far below that which would provide even a decent 56k connexion. However, given a mean quality line, most people can achieve a satisfactory dial up. When that happens, the only provider other than the ISP is the local telephone company. The only problems, then, normally(that word again)encountered are with the ISP's servers, etc. Clarity reigns. The telco has no obligation to provide a line capable of data transmission, but reality is that most lines are usable. The ISP and the ISP alone is responsible for internet associated services. Given reality, a server down at, let us say, AT&T, is their problem and noone else's, in the experience of the consumer.
Viewing the experience of the consumer of DSL, on the other hand, leads an observer to see nearly impossible congeries of events which must coincide for a connexion to function. How many ISPs possess the financial clout to force COVAD or a Bell to deliver services? Therefore, the ISP writes, logically enough, swiss-cheese contracts. Without the threat of government intervention, however odious this may be, how will the consumer be assured that the service, among at least three partners will be satisfactory? DSL would work much better if the threat of cancelling a contract with an ISP had serious legal consequences for everyone from the local telco, ILEC or CLEC, DSL provider, etc.
In my own case, if Bignet is up, and Covad has a bad routing or bad card option, what will realistically happen to Covad if I drop Bignet, even were I to be able to terminate my contract without adversity to myself? My next ISP would still need a CLEC or ILEC. Likewise, if Bignet is to protect itself from liability for Verizon's problems, how could they possibly guarantee anything other than best effort? If DSL is not to be a joke, the owners of all two or three legs of the service must take joint and several liability for the service, and the contracts must be so written among the companies. Without a regulation requiring this, Bells are off the hook. None of the providers can force the others to supply. This creates, in effect, but not essence, the monopoly that Ma Bell had before the breakup. If the end user has problems, all three companies are immune from liability, not legally, but practically. Several liability as a matter of statute would correct this, and the only hope of the consumer being able to force business to behave in the consumer's interest is the might of the state.
If the state understood the nature of the partnerships, it would almost surely create a unique set of laws governing the unique nature of the beast. I, for one, am in favour of severe penalties for failure to provide services, since there is no economic incentive so to do. Since Bignet cannot scare Verizon, the New York State AG ought to. Until such time as the locals, and the CLECs, and ILECs, provide all ISPs the level of services they would have to provide if they were liable themselves for the service, they must be made to be liable artificially, or unbundling is merely a bad joke, played by incompetent lawmakers upon an uncomprehending constituency.
If the ISP cannot order a local telco rollout for a bad quality line, then let the AG do so. But for the partners who deliver the actual physical connexions to be impervious to consumer protection laws is both absurd, and the current state of affairs. The consumer pays the ISP; the ISP must have the legal authority to force its partners to help the consumer. As far as I am concerned, until all current lines are up to advertised speed and quality, no one ought to be allowed to take on new customers. Likewise, overbooking ought to be regulated. Only in this way will the consumer have the quality as well as the investor the profit. I do not advocate investors being unable to enjoy profit. The absolute impossibility, however, as it now exists, for a consumer to enforce a contract is obnoxious. "Best effort" contracts should be outlawed(and there is every argument to be made that they are void ab initio anyway.) The consumer should be guaranteed seamless service, irrespective of how many businesses are involved in the provision thereof.
No lawyer will allow Firestone exculpability because the tires were on Ford trucks. Should Covad be allowed poor routing because one buys XYZ ISP?
No educated person who understands DSL would expect 608k service to be 608; but the reasonable speeds of 500-ish should be enforceable. Noone expects sub 60ms pings for everybody. But no investor ought to profit a penny as long as one 608 customer is getting 200ms pings or 450k speeds. Elsewise contract law, enforceable since the time of Lord Mansfield, ceases to have meaning. Neither should an uneducated jury judge legal liability where there is no understanding of the scientific facts, nor should the same ignorance of facts be used to mask the illegality of the acts of the avaricious, unscrupulous businessmen who invest with an eye to profit without performance.
Basic contract law creates the obligations on all parties; ignorance of the technology obviates them. Let the law prevail, and those who understand it enforce it.
All good wishes,
Yazdzik |
