Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| DSL open networks/fair? In my area Verizon will typically sell DSL lines to competitors for $39.00 plus the ISP has to pay for tha ATM (which is considerable). The price goes down the more lines you buy but the lowest cost is $25 per line. Verizon DSL is $29 if you bundle it and $35 if you do not. There is currently one provider of DSL in my area, Verizon, because they designed it that way.
How is that fair? How does that drive competition with ISPs and DSL?
My point is they cannot. ISPs cannot compete because verizon provides the lines to its customers cheaper than they provide them to the ISPs (so a competing ISP would have to sell there lines for $18 a month more to pay for the line plus ATM costs). At least around here that is the way it is.
Now, there are cable providers in my area. Some of them have there own cable networks but the local ISP provides the actual internet network. In the case of forcing the networks to open up the ISP itself would have to open its network to its competitors. In order to survive the local cable companies would have to do the same thing as my local DSL provider.
So does all this really work out? The same thing the telcos are crying about are the same things they are "working" to gain there competitive edge. They should drop the law regulating both sides, the telcos and the cable companies, and not force them to be open. The telco uses this type of stuff to rape the local companies and it does not really benefit anyone to have "open" networks.
Thats how it is here. If the "open networks" truly worked in PA then I would say go for it but since it has ended with nothing but one provider and Verizon in the bed with senators I cannot see the point. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by keyboard5684:
Thats how it is here. If the "open networks" truly worked in PA then I would say go for it but since it has ended with nothing but one provider and Verizon in the bed with senators I cannot see the point.
Just because opening networks failed in Pennsylvania, doesn't mean its a failure else where. Its worked very well in Bellsouth territory.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice. -- Proudly free of MSO IP network madness! |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | reply to keyboard5684
"They should drop the law regulating both sides"
i concur. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Armstrong Zoom ..
| reply to bmn
But only because BellSouth is working the way the law intended them to do so. There is not reason that BellSouth will not pull the same stuff Verizon has. In fact it is probable that they will some day when put in a pinch to crush the local competition.
My point being that the law is flawed and that the telco, the cable company, the sattelite provider, anyone that the government is trying to force these regulations on, can eventually use it the opposite way it was intended.
Destroying local competition by having the law deny them to build there own networks forcing them to use the big company. When you are forced to use, say Verizon as your DSL provider, then you have no choice but to pay there outragous fees for that open access. This is one way the big guys have or will use the law to there advantage.
Truth is you cannot force local competition by forcing open networks. You can allow competition by removing force. The broadband industry and the internet as a whole has a way of working things out themselves without attempts by government. In the long run allowing legitimate battles between providers will work out just fine. What the law is trying to do and what they will accomplish are 2 different things. The idea of what it will provide is very nice but look at my example of how it was abused and how it will probably eventually be abused in your area. BellSouth is no different than Verizon and an example is easily followed. |
|
