TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs
Hmm... both sides would continue to make money under the two-tiered system... interesting.
In 2001, independent ISPs made up more than 55% of the Internet services market with more than 77 million subscribers. This is at a time when the ILECs had just recently entered the Internet services market.
Thanks to the FCC's inability to maintain adequate regulations forcing ILECs to allow wholesale access to DSL service, today, those other ISPs make up only 28.7% of the Internet Services market with less than 27 million subscribers.
Not only have independent ISPs lost over 50 million subscribers to the ILECS predatory pricing schemes, but thousands of people in the industry lost their jobs and businesses. These numbers continue to decline at an alarming rate and soon there will be no alternatives left but between the ILEC and the Cable MSO. When this happens prices will climb again.
In the meantime, access fees will be levied on companies like Google and Vonage and innovation will be stifled more so than it already has been the ILECs ability to leverage it's telephone monopoly to garner a strangle hold on Internet service.
A prime example of ILEC abuses is AT&T who to this day still do not offer a stand alone DSL product and force you to bundle if you want their DSL for 12.99 for six months plus fees, etc. Lack of choice is never good for consumers.
And to Old_repub I would say, being republican and a free market supporters does not mean you are against regulation. On the contrary, we are the very people that should be fore regulation. Regulation that allows small business to foster and grow. Regulation that prevents multi-national corporations from murdering small business. Just like we have a system of laws to protect citizens from murder and theft, so too do we need regulations to insure businesses do not act in ways detrimental to freedom and capitalism.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| As of December of 2006 DSL will be unbundled as per the California ruling and FCC stipulation for the merger approvals.
Verizon and the New AT&T have until the end of the year to offer naked DSL ( un-bundling the DSL from voice in the provisioning system) per a case brought against SBC and Verizon by AT&T on the same issue.
I followed the case over the last 2 and 1/2 years. SBC and Verizon in a closed meeting with the California Commission showed that in for their systems to provision a DSL you need a phone number. a Naked DSL is not an option; Per the commission's order SBC and Verizon has until the end of this year to make naked DSL work and the FCC made that apart of the merger approval for The NEW AT&T and Verizon/MCI.
What was lost was two of the biggest CLECs that was suing the RBOCs for a competitive market place and now it is gone.
The American way: If a competitor is always suing you for your illegal practices then buy them.
The First statement from the head of AT&T( CEO of SBC) GOOGLE should pay us for access to our customers. Double dipping; Google is paying to access and we (DSL, cable and dialup customers) are paying for access to the internet. |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| The problem with SBC naked DSL claims is that we are offering Naked DSL in SBC and have no problem doing so without a DID.
And since you follow the issue, I am sure you are aware they only have to offer naked DSL for 2 years and there is no stipulation as to what they have to charge. Meaning, don't expect to pay $12.99 for naked DSL from SBC.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
