Bellsouth celebrates annoying 8000 customers
by justin 12:05PM Monday Mar 28 2005 Bellsouth issued a press release
celebrating the "clearing of regulatory underbrush" that, in one state, allowed 8000 customers to receive unbundled DSL (DSL without phone service). Bellsouth, in common with the two other ILECs, prefer absolutely no state regulatory powers at all over how they develop and market their broadband services. With a federal regulatory environment kind to big business they have nothing to worry about there as well. The road is clear for "all or nothing" offers, fiber just for wealthy communities, and zero access for independent ISPs. Yay! break out the champagne.
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
Re: Good Thing
said by Tomek:_PROBABLY_ would? Some of us *ARE* browsing at 256/128 @ $40/mo because of this mess.
Now if only Verizon could unbundle their service. I can't wait to drop the acid eating my wallet (landline + 20% taxes) of around $50 a month.
Anyway, I believe that Gov't is doing good thing to regulate telecom industry. Imagine what would happen if gov't didn't regulate at all. Probably you would still be browsing at 768/128 and bells would only roll higher speeds if they see enough profit from it.
Competition is good, even if it's forced.
Re: "... fiber just for wealthy communities ..."?
said by ColdFiltered:I can already get IPTV - »www.iptv.org/
Also, the fiber in my lawn PREVENTS me from getting the forthcoming IPTV, or even BellSouth's XtremeDSL!
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21
Appearently it's not quite over yet Seems the FCC is still seeking comments on this issue and how it could "adversely effect Consumer choice or competition."
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a ··· 78A1.pdf
IV. NOTICE OF INQUIRY
37. The Order, set forth above, addresses a discrete issue of broadband policy relating to section
251(c) obligations for unbundling.120 However, our disposition of the section 251 question does not address broader questions regarding the tying or bundling of services in general that have been raised in the record of this proceeding. In this Notice of Inquiry, we seek to examine the competitive consequences when providers bundle their legacy services with new services, or tie such services together such that the services are not available independent from one another to end users. We seek comment on how such bundling might affect both intramodal and intermodal competition and the effect that it might have on the public interest, including benefits to consumers.121 Several commenters in this and other proceedings have raised the possibility that bundling services potentially harms competition because consumers have to purchase redundant or unwanted services.122 As the communications marketplace continues to move
toward bundled solutions for consumers, we ask commenters to address specifically whether competition is supplying sufficient incentives for providers to disaggregate bundles to maximize consumer choice.
We seek comment on whether such bundling behavior is harmful to competition, particularly unaffiliated providers of new services, such as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), and if so, how this is related to several previous decisions or ongoing proceedings relating to dominance and classification issues.123 Finally, we seek comment on our authority to impose remedies, the adequacy and costs of any potential regulatory remedies, and the least invasive regulations that could effectively remedy any potential competitive concerns.