FCC Gives AT&T What They WantAgain, and again, and again....for consumers! ( old news - 08:56AM Friday Oct 12 2007) tags: fcc · business · AT&T (Business Services)When the FCC deregulated DSL back in 2005, they effectively killed line sharing, though telcos in some markets are still forced to lease lines to competitors at reduced rates. Verizon, AT&T and Qwest have been fighting to shed such requirements in a number of metro markets. The telcos argue those regions are now competitive and recently asked for "forbearance" from FCC rules. Competitors argue that eliminating these rules will price them out of the market. That argument has never worked on an FCC that continues to be fiercely loyal to the major phone operators. So as you might expect, the FCC yesterday voted along partisan lines to give AT&T most of what they were looking for. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who recently penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal saying the U.S. had no broadband problem, issued a prepared statement that said the commission "is striking a thoughtful balance between de-regulation and consumer protection." He goes on to insist that the FCC "has inadequate information to determine whether allegations that competition is scarce" have merit. Related:- The FCC Gets Bombarded With Broadband Opinions
- GAO On Broadband: Please Listen To Us. For Once. Please.
- Small ISPs Want FCC To Ban ESPN 360 Model
- Digital TV Transition Occurs, World Doesn't End
- FCC To Investigate Exclusive Handset Deals
- 'New' FCC, Same Regulatory Rubber Stamp For CenturyLink
- FCC Greenlights Centurytel/Embarq With Wimpy Conditions
- Genachowski Officially Takes Over FCC
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD 1 edit | I'm shocked, just shocked I say absolutely no surprise whatsoever with this decision.
The consumer broadband market has been screwed for a while; now the business market is going to be screwed. Let's be happy, everyone's screwed now! | |
|  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say How is the business market "screwed" exactly? Because they can no longer undercut their provider and freeload off of their competitors' infrastructures? If competitors want to compete, then they should compete with their product capabilities, not those of their competitors. | |
|  |  |  axus
join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say It's not freeloading if they're paying the wholesale cost of the broadband connection. You can't be implying that the phone companies sell internet service to consumers for no profit. Also, we don't call it freeloading when the government subsidizes research and tax breaks for these companies. | |
|  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say I did not imply that phone companies sell internet service to consumers for no profit. Ok, may be freeloading was slightly strong worded. How about, it's time for competitors to compete on even ground and stop undercutting the "competitors" that paid for the infrastructure in the first place because the CLECs don't have the same expenses. Who determines the "wholesale cost"? | |
|  |  |  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by openbox9 :.. stop undercutting the "competitors" that paid for the infrastructure in the first place because the CLECs don't have the same expenses... the major ILECs didn't pay for that infrastructure, consumers did through tax breaks, govt guaranteed rates of return and regulations controlling the market. There was no financial risk whatsoever to the ILECs when they did their buildout and they didn't have to worry about the "playing field" because they WERE the playing field.
If the playing field were to be truly equal (or at least more equal), the ILECs would be forced to divest themselves of last mile assets and all competitors in an area (including the ILECs) would pay the same rate to use that last mile. Instead, the last mile and other critical assets are controlled by the ILECs and competitors have to come to them for access.
How in the hell is a start up, or even a large "new entrant", supposed to come up with the money to build identical last mile access, right alongside ILEC copper or fiber? Will investors loan money to a business that has to spend billions building infrastructure before they even have a sustainable subscriber base? and when they have to compete for those subscribers with entrenched incumbents with tremendous market power? how is a CLEC going to be able to charge a high enough price for services to get a reasonable rate of return on investment when the ILECs can easily undercut their price?
When you can explain to me the business model for a CLEC to make a profit competing against the ILECs by building their own last mile infrastructure, I will be willing to concede that CLECs need to build their own last mile infrastructure. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by nasadude :Instead, the last mile and other critical assets are controlled by the ILECs and competitors have to come to them for access. What about cablecos?said by nasadude :When you can explain to me the business model for a CLEC to make a profit competing against the ILECs by building their own last mile infrastructure, I will be willing to concede that CLECs need to build their own last mile infrastructure. Sounds like a double standard to me. Allow CLECs access to infrastructure so that they can compete with companies who O&M the network when there's already competition in a lot of markets that aren't being forced to provide similar access. Why should the ILECs be forced to allow CLECs to compete with them on their own network? I'm not seeing this great increase in competition or lower costs for consumers. What's the point beyond adding extra bureaucracy? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by openbox9 :Sounds like a double standard to me. Allow CLECs access to infrastructure so that they can compete with companies who O&M the network when there's already competition in a lot of markets that aren't being forced to provide similar access. Why should the ILECs be forced to allow CLECs to compete with them on their own network? I'm not seeing this great increase in competition or lower costs for consumers. What's the point beyond adding extra bureaucracy? Ok, let's just cut to the chase. It looks like I'm not going to convince you and you certainly aren't going to convince me.
The fact is, the U.S. broadband market IS NOT COMPETITIVE. You can say it is, Martin can say it is McDowell can say it is, Verizon can say it is, ATT can say it is, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. The ILECs control last mile access and no other company is going to step up and make the investment (except perhaps in a very limited geographic area) needed to create a duplicate last mile infrastructure - it's stupid, it's wasteful and it's highly unlikely that company will succeed.
If competition in the U.S. depends on competitors to step up and create duplicate last mile infrastructure, the U.S. will never have a competitive broadband market.
The current situation may be good for the ILECs and their shareholders, but it's not good for consumers and it's not good for this country. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by nasadude :Ok, let's just cut to the chase. It looks like I'm not going to convince you and you certainly aren't going to convince me. The fact is, the U.S. broadband market IS NOT COMPETITIVE. Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree because I'd say that the U.S broadband market is competitive. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by openbox9 :Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree because I'd say that the U.S broadband market is competitive. how many choices of broadband provider do you have?
I have ONE choice, comcast. I live a few miles outside the DC metro beltway in Maryland, in a densely populated area.
FYI, Maryland population density was ranked 5th highest in the nation in 2006.
you obviously must have several choices of broadband provider. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by nasadude :how many choices of broadband provider do you have? I live in southern Alabama the Florida Panhandle between Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach...definitely not a metropolis. For consumer broadband, I have cable, DSL, cellular (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T), WISP, and satellite. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by openbox9 :said by nasadude :how many choices of broadband provider do you have? I live in southern Alabama the Florida Panhandle between Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach...definitely not a metropolis. For consumer broadband, I have cable, DSL, cellular (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T), WISP, and satellite. satellite and cellular are not substitutes for DSL and cable; WISP may be, depending on speeds and reliability.
I am in a monopoly area, you are basically in a duopoly area. At least you have one more choice than I do.
The FCC and the ILECs love for people to equate cellular broadband, BPL, satellite, etc. for direct competition with wireline broadband. They aren't; direct competition would be another wireline (or 700Mhz) competitor. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by nasadude :satellite and cellular are not substitutes for DSL and cable For a vast majority of consumers, they are substitutes. The biggest issue with satellite and cellular right now are cost...but then again you can say the same thing about DSL's dial tone requirement and cable's expensiveness.said by nasadude :I am in a monopoly area, you are basically in a duopoly area. At least you have one more choice than I do. I am not in a duopoly.said by nasadude :direct competition would be another wireline (or 700Mhz) competitor. Don't limit your options. Competition exists, and is growing. BTW, your 700 MHz isn't the panacea that everyone seems to think that it's going to be. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Let's take this argument one step further... How much of the backbone ISN'T provided by AT&T, Qwest, or Verizon? At some point, even the cable companies were buying services from a telco provider. In the long run, part of the cable subscriber's money was winding up in the pockets of the bell. -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and Im told its a womans prerogative..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say So? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20 | Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say So.. what? Enlighten us on on your "so"... Don't know how to respond. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say I was commenting on your statement about telecoms owning and managing portions of the internet backbone. I didn't see the relevance. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say You said: "Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree because I'd say that the U.S broadband market is competitive."
The market is not really competitive when the majority of the data still travels over the same two or three people's lines, who in turn, make the rules and set the prices. -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and Im told its a womans prerogative..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say Are we not talking about consumer service? Consumers are far removed from the backbone and I don't think your rules and prices are that relevant. If you really want to go to the level you're talking about, don't forget about the companies providing electricity, router/switch manufactures, copper/fiber manufactures, unions and wage earners, etc, all "controlling" costs to consumers way down the path. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say Electricity providers are regulated. Router/Switch manufacturers have PLENTY of competition and those providers have choices, same with copper and fiber manufacturers. Unions and wage earners are a non-starter in this picture as well... but, something that is controlled and was once regulated and split up over this very issue has been allowed to reform and regroup and here we are... -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and Im told its a womans prerogative..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say Telecom providers are regulated as well. So are cablecos. Router/Switch manufacturers have about as much serious competition on internet backbones as what your consumer broadband service providers do. Why are unions and wage earners non-starters? You can't seriously believe that unions don't drive up costs of products being sold can you? The "New AT&T" is not the same as the old AT&T and like I initially mentioned is still regulated. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say Unions? You're talking about items that drive up costs.. and I'm talking about an industry or corporation holding people to pay what ever they want.. two different things.
Cable TV, so you know, isn't regulated. The only thing that has a rule is on the lowest tier of service.
I'm sorry to say, but your last message really shows that you don't have much experience in the industry so we'll leave it at that and end this here. -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and Im told its a womans prerogative..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| said by nasadude :the major ILECs didn't pay for that infrastructure, consumers did through tax breaks, govt guaranteed rates of return and regulations controlling the market. There was no financial risk whatsoever to the ILECs when they did their buildout and they didn't have to worry about the "playing field" because they WERE the playing field. The telcos received subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, etc that ultimately offset some of the cost. They way you have things worded it would appear to the uninformed that the telcos didn't pay a dime and it was completely tax payer funded which definitely wasn't the case.
As such, there was financial risk to the ILECs. Yes it was a reduced risk because of the financial help, but it also wasn't without risk either.
Not trying to take sides in the debase (although I lean towards the ILECs side) but just want to set the record straight. | |
|  |  |  |  |   quetwo That VoIP Guy Premium join:2004-09-04 East Lansing, MI
| Wholesale cost is determined on a state-by-state basis by the public service comission. The LECs go infront of the boards and tell them how much it costs them per line to run a dry pair (no service, just battery). This is the cost that was allowed to the CLECs | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by quetwo :.. The LECs go infront of the boards and tell them how much it costs them per line to run a dry pair (no service, just battery). .. [sarcasm] and I'm sure this information is as complete and accurate as the information the FCC collects on broadband deployment [/sarcasm] | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by quetwo :costs them per line to run a dry pair (no service, just battery) I assume by cost to "run" you also include installation, deployment, and upgrade of infrastructure? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs: | Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say It's completely up to the Telcos to preach their wholesale rate. I almost guarantee there is profit built-in to the rate they present. KM | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say said by KoolMoe :It's completely up to the Telcos to preach their wholesale rate. I almost guarantee there is profit built-in to the rate they present. I totally guarantee it. 
Where this myth that they "give the lines away to competitors" came from is beyond me... Covad and others pay dearly for dry copper for "naked" ADSL and SDSL. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| That's fine and I would hope that the telcos aren't breaking even or losing money by selling access to CLECs. The root of the problem is still that the ILECs are forced to provide this access and I'm having a difficult time seeing benefits for anyone except for the poor CLECs who "can't afford to compete and need a handout to get into business". Here's an idea. If CLECs really want to provide service and can't afford to overbuild infrastructure, maybe they should look at buying the infrastructure from the ILEC. But then again, I'm sure they can't afford that option either. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   quetwo That VoIP Guy Premium join:2004-09-04 East Lansing, MI
| Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say Take a look at the history books, and turn to the pages where in New York, each "CLEC" or competitive phone company ran their own wires. The poles were 3 stories tall, with gobs and gobs of wires. People saw this as an assult of their public right-of-way, so new laws were enacted.
Could you imaging every CLEC having to have their own pole space in each metro they serviced? Just in my area, there is : AT&T, Old AT&T, TDS, Metrolink, Telecom USA, CheckPhone, McCloud USA, ACD, Arialink, Comcast... Those are just the ones on the top of my head. And I don't live in a very dense area!
The goverment subsidized the build out of a SINGLE telecom network to remove the issue of having every C/LEC have its own wire in the ground.
The copper plant in the ground is a natural monopoly. The service running on it, is a commodity market. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   quetwo That VoIP Guy Premium join:2004-09-04 East Lansing, MI | If it dosen't, then the the LECs are fools. The dry-run costs are to include the copper plant ONLY from the CLEC's cage to the customer's DMARC. This would include install + maintenance of the pair. | |
|  Network Guy
join:2000-08-25 New York | Yay monopoly So how much longer before Verizon jacks up their dry-loop DSL offering to $50?
Bottom line.. Money is king.
It's quite pathetic. | |
|  |  See 33 replies to this post | |
  Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Sarasota, FL clubs:
·VoicePulse
| inadequate information He goes on to insist that the FCC "has inadequate information to determine...." Jack. The word he is looking for here is Jack.
The FCC can't figure out how to put together a simple spreadsheet of who has service, who could have service, and who can't. How the hell are these idiots still in charge of anything. -- Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA
| FCC loves telco And I thought I was telcolackey  | |
|  |  |   LiamJunket Premium join:2002-03-03 Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| AT&T didn't get carte blanche - rate freedom limited
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1192169···news_wsj
The decision freed up AT&T from having to adhere to detailed rate obligations, but didn't grant the wider freedom it had been seeking. This means that competitive carriers would no longer be able to see what AT&T generally charges business customers for providing some forms of broadband service, and thus be able to price their own services accordingly. To mollify the concerns of these smaller phone and Internet companies, the FCC established a complaints procedure by which any complaint made against AT&T would have to be resolved within five months.
In order to win fellow Republican Mr. McDowell's vote, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin may have agreed to take some action to address widespread concerns about the state of competition in another area, the special access market, which provides high-volume voice and data services to large commercial customers.
All the FCC did was prevent competitors from seeing what AT&T is charging customers so that they could undercut AT&T by a few cents to get the business. Now those competitors have to make their bids for business based more on their costs and profit aspirations without getting inside knowledge of AT&T's bids.
In effect, the FCC allows a closed bid process when carriers bid for a customer's business. This may actually lower costs for businesses shopping for phone & internet services since true competition is now in play. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: AT&T didn't get carte blanche - rate freedom limited Sacrilege...how can the FCC's obvious favoritism towards the telecoms result in lower prices...[/sarcasm] | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by LiamJunket :... This may actually lower costs for businesses shopping for phone & internet services since true competition is now in play. If this results in lower costs for business, I will turn into a pumpkin.
check back in a few months to see if I am orange.
You, Martin, McDowell and whoever else can say the U.S. has a competitive market until the cows come home, but it won't make it so. Yes, there may be SOME markets (likely very few) that are competitive, but the overall U.S. market is dominated by a few large telcos that generally are monopolies in the regions they serve.
Everyone knows the FCC hides reports they don't like, purposefully collects data known to be incomplete and inadequate for decision making and almost ALWAYS sides with the incumbents. In the cases where it appears the FCC makes a decision in the consumers interest, it is usually a sham or has no real impact on the true market.
The bottom line is that the telecom industry in the U.S. is becoming more concentrated, less regulated and more monopolistic with every decision the FCC makes. There is a reason we keep dropping in the rankings and it's NO COMPETITION. This FCC decision just helps there be that much less competition.
go ahead, tell me the U.S. market is competitive - it just ain't so. | |
|  |  |  Myrlin Premium join:2002-09-22 Elysian, MN | Re: AT&T didn't get carte blanche - rate freedom limited you can say that again and again and...
well said nasadude! | |
|  milkman82
join:2006-06-19 North Olmsted, OH | You the MAN ATT!!! Really admire the fact they can shape the market the way they want it and think it should be! | |
|   cableties Premium join:2005-01-27 Newtown, PA
| Oversight needed... I may sound rather impulsive. But I went ahead and complained to my two senators (Casey and Specter). I wonder if I should complain to my reps as well.
The FCC has become a shill for the telcos, period. There seems to be nothing but asinine decisions ever since Michael Powell...IMHO.
Lag begins at the top... -- Weeeeeeee! | |
|  |   Adam20 Premium join:2007-07-19 Sarnia, ON | Re: Oversight needed... I personally agree with the decision, if companys want to be competitive they should invest in building their own networks just as the "bells" did. | |
|  |  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: Oversight needed... said by Adam20 :I personally agree with the decision, if companys want to be competitive they should invest in building their own networks just as the "bells" did. You do realize that "Bell" built the networks under an entirely different set of circumstances than exists today. Back when the network was built, it was far easier to get easements and RoW space granted to you.
The fact is that the current climate of providers leasing space from the ILECS was suppose to be temporary. They were suppose to use the income from those operations to then go and build out their own networks. However, before any of that could really happen, the TA1996 was gutted over and over again. Now the ability of the remaining companies to actually build networks has been killed. With the massive cost of renting pole space, RoW and easement costs, any new player is basically left in the position of a quadraplegic asked to box Mike Tyson. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  66466388
join:2006-11-22 | politicians those goddamn republicans! ...or is it democrats.... ...wahtever-- GODDAMN POLITICIANS AND THEIR POCKETS LINED WITH SPECIAL INTEREST MONEYS! | |
|  | |  |
|
|