Verizon Nudges Fiber Deregulation Urges FCC treat FTTP like cable broadband Verizon Communications this week filed two petitions with the FCC (Word document), requesting that the agency treat any Fiber to the Premises service the same as they treat cable broadband services. Cable broadband providers are free from many of the regulations facing the phone companies, as they were previously classified as an "information service" as opposed to a "telecommunications service", a ruling the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with. Verizon has recently made a lot of noise with their fiber to the home trials in Keller, Texas, and claims that they'll have "1 million homes passed" in nine states with fiber by year's end.
|
  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | What? Let's *SEE* some freakin fiber! They got a down payment to get started....well? Now they are sniveling about deregulating something that doesn't exist yet? 
--
Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out. TheTechPub | |
|  | p00ter_nerdWort Wort Wort
join:2003-09-02
East Berlin, PA | Re: What? I bet they'll want another 3 billion from pennsylvania. | |
| | |  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: What? Verizon is real folks -- too bad I'm just across the street from it all. I say make-way for progress. | |
| | | |  pianotechPianotechPremium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA | Re: What? *Yawn*...there goes Verizon promising the world yet again... | |
|
| | |
| | | When they plug my house in, then I will call my congressman and let them know.
--
4 More years and we won't have a country. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| dont care about verizon I am not a verizon customer, and could care less about anything they offer. yet i live in a verizon area. Cable offers better speeds, and i use voip. Verizon when you finally offer your over-funded, under deployed service, please dont offer it to me. Cable will have surpassed you already with something more attractive. | |
| | mishaqPremium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX | Re: dont care about verizon Well, uh, fiber will be better than cable, sorry. And this does bring back old questions about the stances of telecom monopolies. Why should verizon lay all this fiber down if they are going to have to share it with companies who didnt pay a cent to build it? Competition is good, but it is also bad. I still toy with the question, what would things be like if AT&T never broke up? With telecom being an actual business now instead of a utility, perhaps things could be better. With it being a utility, perhaps getting the services to as many as possible would have been more of a concern than pure profits. But alas, it is the American culture to make money, and the DoJ saw fit that there would be not one company in control over all communications facilities. Im just not sure, but if AT&T were still around, it makes me wonder whether or not Id have FTTP right now.
Addition: And I know, people dont like the idea of one company providing a service, but we all (or most of us) have on power company, one water company, one gas company. If they can be regulated and work to maintain satisfactory service, all can be well. Its all the FCC's fault, our country's communications are in a big mess right now, perhaps someday it can become one unified network as it once was, I mean, the former 7 RBOCs are now what, 3? or is it 4? Verizon, SBC, BellSouth, and Qwest? Eh, I can't write 
--
Damn you FCC! | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: dont care about verizon How can you say the Telco's are paying for it? They're not the customers are one way or another. Like in PA the residents paid for it there by giving VZ a tax break and by giving them money. I'm sure PA could have used that money for something else.
Thats like you pay VZ to expand and "improve" their network by having them for service. What they do with that money is nothing but leave it sit.
VZ is just like SBC. We get promised something then never see it. | |
| | | | | | Re: dont care about verizon said by hottboiinnc:
How can you say the Telco's are paying for it? They're not the customers are one way or another. Like in PA the residents paid for it there by giving VZ a tax break and by giving them money. I'm sure PA could have used that money for something else.
Thats like you pay VZ to expand and "improve" their network by having them for service. What they do with that money is nothing but leave it sit.
VZ is just like SBC. We get promised something then never see it.
Umm... right. So your claim is that a company that invests in something and then pays for it by using revenue that it generates from its customers doesn't own the original investment?
What if I get a federal grant to open a small business? Does the public then own my business? How about subsidized financial aid loans and Pell Grants for college tuition? Since these are tax subsidized, does EVERYTHING that anyone does that is based on the education paid for using these subsidies have to be owned by the public?
Perhaps you'd like to suggest that anyone who gets a Federal Stafford loan for college should pay extra income tax because the loan is subsidized and that education got them a higher paying job?
Any better logical ideas you've got? | |
|
| | | | And I know, people dont like the idea of one company providing a service, but we all (or most of us) have on power company, one water company, one gas company. If they can be regulated and work to maintain satisfactory service, all can be well.
Either you're too young to remember what it was like when there was just one phone company or it's just been so long that you've forgotten. The service was much more expensive (in real dollars) than it is now, especially long-distance. In fact, making a long-distance call was something of a luxury, and it was only after AT&T was broken up that the cost began to drop. As far as the quality of the service goes, you can still occasionally see the old Saturday Night Live skits where Lily Tomlin plays an operator and in at least one case closes with, "We don't care. We don't have to. (Snort) We're the Phone Company."
It's debatable whether or not service has improved since "Ma Bell" was broken up, but what's certainly true is that we have more choices than we did and prices have dropped. Where I live, I can choose between Verizon or SBC for my local phone service, Verizon, SBC, or Covad for my DSL (or Comcast for a cable modem), and I have lots of choices when it comes to long distance. Then there are options like VOIP, cell phones, etc., that provide even more choices and that have served to drive prices down -- which is exactly what competition is meant to do.
You mentioned utilities in your post, which is a good example. Where I live, I can choose between electric providers (but not gas or water service), and as a result my electric bills are about 10% lower than they would be if I had stayed with the "incumbent" provider. The prices I pay for monopoly-provided gas and water, on the other hand, have continued to gradually increase.
For another example of the effects of competition, look at the falling prices (and increasing speeds) offered by DSL and cable providers to compete with each other. Do you suppose that they'd be offering lower prices and higher speeds if they had no competition? Why would they do that -- just to be "nice"?
Competition doesn't necessarily improve the quality of service received, but it most definitely does drive down prices. My long distance service works at least as well as it did 30 years ago, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper. | |
|
1 edit | Going to try it.... They have already marked the lines in my yard and should have the fiber installed in about 2 weeks. I will most likely give the data service a try. The information I received stated service at around 25Mb that will scale to 100Mb if demand is there. Will have to see. | |
| | | | Re: Going to try it.... where do you live? | |
| | | | | Re: Going to try it.... Keller Texas | |
| | | | | | Re: Going to try it.... damn
I was hoping you lived in my area. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| whiners looks like the "boohoo, I can't really afford to deploy fiber unless you grant me a monopoly" argument.
I got a suggestion for the FCC: tell them they can have exclusive use of fiber they pay for and deploy, but they have to completely give up their monopoly with the copper wires.
Anyone want to bet how this suggestion will play? | |
| | | | Re: whiners With the rise of cable provided phone services the monopoly you speak of no longer exists.
As soon as cable moves into phone and phone moves into cable then we will have real competition in this arena. The ILEC's are making a legitmate request to level the playing field between them and the cable co's. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: whiners said by rahvin112:
With the rise of cable provided phone services the monopoly you speak of no longer exists.
you're right - it's a duopoly. I don't see SBC coming in or Charter coming in, so for me, it's Verizon OR Comcast. Instead of getting ripped off a lot, I will only get ripped off a little. | |
|
| | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: whiners said by amenite:
said by nasadude:
looks like the "boohoo, I can't really afford to deploy fiber unless you grant me a monopoly" argument.
...
Like Cablevision would have ever strung all that fiber in my area had they been forced to rent it to their direct competitors? You think?
Yes but did cablevision charge you for years for upgrades that didnt happen, and did they charge you a fee for rural deployment etc. There a big difference between cable, and phone companies. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by nasadude:
looks like the "boohoo, I can't really afford to deploy fiber unless you grant me a monopoly" argument.
I got a suggestion for the FCC: tell them they can have exclusive use of fiber they pay for and deploy, but they have to completely give up their monopoly with the copper wires.
Anyone want to bet how this suggestion will play?
How would you like it if you paid all sorts of money out of your earning to run a fiber link from your house to the internet and your neighbor says hey I want some of that to and goes and piggy backs off you while you paid all the money to have it laid and the money for the point of presence.
Only to have him pay you pennies on the dollar to what you owe on the link. When it's your pocket it's pretty hard but when its a huge conglomerate it's fine ?
Only thing to do is either regulate them all the same or deregulate them all the same. There is no difference between Verizon and Comcast at this point except Verizon doesn't offer TV via cable/fiber yet.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
| | | | | Re: whiners The argument is somewhat flawed.
Everybody knows that it's not economically feasible to have 3-4 different fibers being laid down throughout the country. Furthermore, fiber has so much bandwidth that one fiber strand should be enough for any given neighborhood.
Now, I don't see how forcing Verizon to rent at a fair price their fiber to others is a problem. Baby bells will do anything to keep their monopoly just because it allows them to make more money.
This is the way it should be done. We should have cities laying down fiber and then renting it to whoever wants to provide services. Same rental price for everybody, and no more bitching about how the "poor" bells have to share their friggin network.
That would bring real competition and lower prices to everybody. Oops, I forgot, nobody really wants lower prices... | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: whiners While it would be great for it to work your way it just won't. No city will do it with tax payers money it's suicide for a politician.
It's not economically feasible how ? Your talking about a country with way more then 4 fiber cables spread over an area. Each backbone provider has many fiber runs for redundancy.
Enough bandwidth for a neighbor hood how ? With todays applications yes. But start offering 100 HDTV channels over that fiber and watch it's "bandwidth" crumble.
Why if they bought it should they have to share it, that's just plain ignorant. If you bought a car should you share it with me ? Come on buddy buy that new corvette I will be sure to come over and rent it from you for $10 a day.
As far as forcing them to share WHY ? That doesn't get the fiber laid and into my home. I have cable my cable company doesn't have to share their network with say Dish-network because they want to provide cable service. Why should they have to they own the network.
The new fiber laid would not be shared. The old network of copper and fiber would still be shared. And all the little companies can use that network. The universal funds should be used to keep that network going and that is it. The new fiber is theirs to do with as they please.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
| | | | | | | Re: whiners Thanks for calling me ignorant, but that'd be nice if you could actually use examples relevant to the discussion.
There is currently no need, now or in the not too distant future, for more than one strand of fiber to each home. Even with 100 HDTV channels, there will be plently of bandwidth for everybody. I'm not very technical, but my understanding that you can gain more bandwidth from a strand by dicing the wavelength of each signal finer and finer as the need for bandwidth arises. It is not economical to have 4, 5 or 10 companies each burying their own fiber to get to your house.
To use a better example than your Corvette, what you're advocating would be the same as requiring each energy provider to build its own electrical line. Or to use your example, to ask each car manufacturer to build its own road.
The idea here is to separate the conduit from the services. Otherwise, what we create is a huge barrier to entry by requiring each service provider to also own the physical link to your house. If the bells don't have to share the fiber bandwidth, we are creating a monopoly for the next century.
Again, I'm not saying that the bells should lease the fiber below cost, let them earn a fair return on investment on their fiber, just like electric lines owners rent their lines. This is no different.
And finally, since the cable and phone companies are a de facto duopoly/monopoly in some areas, there is absolutely no reason why they should do as they please. As a consumer, I'll be footing their bill, so I want somebody to oversee them and open up the market as much as possible. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: whiners I didn't call you ignorant I mean the idea is ignorant.
Theres only so far you can go with current technology within costs on fiber. While it's true one single strand can be used to carry a massive amount of data.
Lets say one strand can carry a gbit a sec. Now chop that down. Lets say they all swap to voip. 10 k a sec both directions for decent quality. 10 people stress out a mbit link. Now you pile on multiple users. lets say your city has 10,000 people. That line becomes quickly saturated at 1 gig bit. Fast link saturation. The numbers are not exact though we just rounding off for the lack of physical set in stone numbers.
Now it cost verizon say 10 million to run that fiber ring. Each customer pays $10 a month to use. 10 months to make the money back If it was all profit. But it's not. So lets assume they make $1 per month per user profit. 10 k a month 120 k a year. It's awhile before this pays off.
Now with the others piggy backing for low cost. You talk about allowing them to access the network for .50 profit. Takes longer for it to pay off. Simple economics.
Now a company wants to compete here it's simple. They buy a built portion of the fiber. So verizon sells them say a chunk of bandwidth. say they sell them a 100 mbit trunk. If they provide it for cost they make nothing and every one has a choice same prices.
In a perfect world yeah sure let's do it. In the corporate world this is stupid to let others in on a profit chunk like this. It's stupid if you laid out the capital. BTW the others still have the copper network we currently use.
Now let's look at cable. They don't allow anyone on their copper and they aren't regulated as hard. Why ? The excuse is well they paid for the copper and did it themselves. Well this is the same boat verizon wants. Either the fcc regulates both the same or they deregulate. It's only fair. Cable provides data tv and phone. Verizon only does data and phone.
As far as the car analogy it's right on the money. Not each car manufacturer building their own road. I got no idea where you got that idea. If i bought a portion of land to drive my car (race track) then it's my choice who I allow on the course. You can't go whipping around my track for free. You pay a fee so I can recoup some money. If you crash into a wall on my course I need to pay to fix not you. Same here on fiber. Some thing goes wrong they pay to fix not the little guy.
Ohh and the electrical companies i don't know much about but I assume they own the lines in the cities much like cable companies. If im producing power im not gonna let you come in and say hey we are sharing the cables even though your producing the power im gonna sell it cheaper so I can get your customers. It's just not gonna happen. Welcome to capitalist america.
I agree with separating the service from the conduit, thats why I love muni projects. But since the cities are far and few between doing we need to have it done. And I don't expect Verizon to pour out money and let every one make money on their fiber until it's paid off and they have paid the rest of the bills. once it does hell open it up all they want.
Yeah you will be footing the bill so will I if I had their service. I don't have their service so I am not footing the bill. If they offered it here yes I would jump to it in a second. Even if the net speed was only 10 mbit each way.
Cable companies and teclo are not monopolies any more, or so says all the people who know the facts. Theres still cell phones, satellite tv, satellite phones , and satellite broadband. While it may not be what you want, thats no reason to say they are monopolies.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
| | | | | | | | Well put answer.
On the electrical line example, at least out here in the West, multiple providers share the same electrical line. | |
|
| | | | | said by Zorglub:
The argument is somewhat flawed.
Everybody knows that it's not economically feasible to have 3-4 different fibers being laid down throughout the country. Furthermore, fiber has so much bandwidth that one fiber strand should be enough for any given neighborhood.
Now, I don't see how forcing Verizon to rent at a fair price their fiber to others is a problem. Baby bells will do anything to keep their monopoly just because it allows them to make more money.
This is the way it should be done. We should have cities laying down fiber and then renting it to whoever wants to provide services. Same rental price for everybody, and no more bitching about how the "poor" bells have to share their friggin network.
That would bring real competition and lower prices to everybody. Oops, I forgot, nobody really wants lower prices...
It's YOUR argument that is flawed. "Everyone knows that it's economically unfeasible to have 3-4 fiber networks laid?" Do you know how much redundancy there is in the fiber and copper networks today? There are MANY fiber strands out there- and they're not all used at once.
How do you think businesses can purchase data and voice circuits with 100% guarantee uptime? Did you think it's because they're paying for a "REALLY reliable pair" as opposed to the "not so reliable- in fact pretty shitty pair" that other people get? Don't think so- it's because of network redundancy.
It already exists. It's not only economically feasible, it's ALREADY THERE!
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | Re: whiners You don't understand. What I'm saying is that it's not economical to have multiple companies lay fiber strands in each neighborhood. Now, I don't know if a neighborhood needs 1, 2 or 10 strands to be serviced, but that's not the point. The point is that it's clearly not economical to have 10 companies each laying down fiber to each house. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: whiners said by Zorglub:
You don't understand. What I'm saying is that it's not economical to have multiple companies lay fiber strands in each neighborhood. Now, I don't know if a neighborhood needs 1, 2 or 10 strands to be serviced, but that's not the point. The point is that it's clearly not economical to have 10 companies each laying down fiber to each house.
No less economical than having 10 different companies putting peanut butter in jars. But they do- and it's not impossible for them to compete by doing it on their own.
It's a bit odd that nothing has changed since the wholesale rate structure was struck down by a federal appeals court- yet suddenly both AT&T and MCI are claiming that their profits are shrinking so much that they aren't going to even compete in the consumer markets!
So now that the Bells are announcing plans to invest in more fiber in the field, the cry is suddenly "the monopolies" are going to force anyone who wants fiber to use THEM! And they're doing it by investing in fiber! They KNOW that no one else is doing it- so they're BAD!
I just don't understand the claim that the sky is falling. Have prices gone up in phone services?
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: whiners said by boogie74:
No less economical than having 10 different companies putting peanut butter in jars. But they do- and it's not impossible for them to compete by doing it on their own.
Boogie
Actually, it is very different. The telco business is one of very high fixed costs (laying down the fiber, etc.) and of extremely low variable costs. That is clearly not the case with regular consumer products, be it peanut butter, bread or a toaster.
So, that's why we'll never see 10 different companies each laying down their own fiber/copper/coax to our house, because they would not be able to recover their upfront investment. That barrier to entry is so high that we'll never see a truely competitive market on the service side unless the conduit providers are forced to share the conduits. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: whiners said by Zorglub:
said by boogie74:
No less economical than having 10 different companies putting peanut butter in jars. But they do- and it's not impossible for them to compete by doing it on their own.
Boogie
Actually, it is very different. The telco business is one of very high fixed costs (laying down the fiber, etc.) and of extremely low variable costs. That is clearly not the case with regular consumer products, be it peanut butter, bread or a toaster.
So, that's why we'll never see 10 different companies each laying down their own fiber/copper/coax to our house, because they would not be able to recover their upfront investment. That barrier to entry is so high that we'll never see a truely competitive market on the service side unless the conduit providers are forced to share the conduits.
I can't agree with this concept. One might as well apply it to ANY business plan with high start-up costs- for example, international airlines, radio and tv stations, wireless phone providers, data storage and transport providers, etc.
The investment in 60 to 70 Boeing 747-400 jets would definitely make for a large barrier to any company wishing to sell overseas transportation. Likewise, the investment in several thousand GSM cell towers nationwide to provide a wireless service is a large investment and hence barrier. Satellite service is even MORE costly- as you must actually rocket a satellite into a geo-synchronous orbit. But companies are doing it all the time.
There is no reason why a company would be prevented from deploying fiber to the premise even if there is already a fiber drawn from somewhere else. You can't argue that it's a waste of time to do it and make it so redundant- only to claim that it's now too expensive when it's pointed out that redundancy is good and desireable.
Boogie | |
|
 tomspratDraw Me A "Cold One"Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Same old story The ILECs and their supporters ask for fairness and responsibility, then take advantage of the situation by stealing the taxpayers' money, via incentives, then asking that the rules be changed to favor them further. Corporations have no ethics or scruples. They have one concern only, which is to make money. Why is it, then, that anyone who opposes their greedy double-standard is labeled as being "unfair"?
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... | |
| | FlizeshPremium
join:2003-08-16
United State | wahhhh I want fiber to the home :| | |
| | ced06
join:2004-03-12
Towanda, PA | Re: wahhhh I want broadband. Screw Verzion. The steal millions, but they don't deploy fiber...meh, it's not like I'd see it anyways (I live in a town of 5000....on the outskirts).  | |
|
 yaplejPremium
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR | Deregulate? No. Share new fiber development? No. If FTTH were to be classifies as an information service rather than telecom it would allow Verizon to deploy a fiber networks and not share those networks with competitors.
Its JMO but I think they should meet in the middle on this one. Keep the industry prices regulated but do not require any new fiber deployments to be shared with competitors. I bet you would see almost all telecoms deploy fiber in a heart beat in order to keep competitors off their networks.
Things to consider is that I could see them pulling out their old systems and replace them with new fiber to reduce completion completely. So they would need to make it illegal to remove old copper networks for these reasons. Some people may not want fiber service and would rather have a simple POTS line.
Again JMO. | |
| | | | Re: Deregulate? No. Share new fiber development? No. I agree too. Economically, technology has suffered when it has been regulated in some way. Inorder for technology to be deployed quickly, we must leave it unregulated. Once it is established, we should then start thinking about regulation. It is important to have regulation that does not hinder the growing process too.... Otherwise technology development and implementation will just stall.
How does this relate to the economy? Take a look at Hong Kong and India. India's economy is HEAVILY regulated. Businesses are unable to start in their homeland. US companies have to fight tooth and nail just to establish a building there (they have to get electric which requires gov't approval, etc etc etc). It's regulation heaven and the FCC would have a blast there. However, look at Hong Kong. The city, at the beginning, was a piece of rock. It had minimal regulation, and, respectively, grew into a HUGE city within a relatively short period of time. I believe that this same logic would work in any case. Just my thoughts (well... the economy part is more widely accepted).  .... | |
| | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: Deregulate? No. Share new fiber development? Or how about this... Create a carrier neutral company who is only resposible for delivering the bits and rent the network to anyone, regardless of who they are.
--
Got Carbs?
No, I'm not a libertarian... I'm a proud, registered Independent [thinker]. | |
| | yaplejPremium
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR | Sounds good, but who is this company going to be? Who owns it? What does it charge? There are a lot of questions that need answered, but over all I think that's a good solution to the problem at hand.
Maybe the gov should establish a not for profit org that will handle this. If it were to happen that way they just better make sure they hire some people who know what they are doing. | |
| | | | | Re: Deregulate? No. Share new fiber development? Just like companies own electical lines don't care who delivers the electricity. It can be done. | |
| | | | | | Re: Deregulate? No. Share new fiber development? Actually... that is also an example of how regulation can weaken the development and evolution of technology. Our electric infrastructure has become so weak. It was not allowed to evolve with demand cause of regulation. Just look at the blackout in the Northeast! (not familiar with power grids... but pretty sure that's what happened) | |
|
JackM0
join:2004-07-01
North Reading, MA | North Reaning, Mass Hi they are currently stringing the poles in my town as we speak they hope to have the whole town done by years end
I talk to some verizon employees i know and they inform me verizon is going to be pushing an all included package (cable,internet,phone and wireless) for around 100 bucks but don't quote me on that
Jack | |
| | | | Re: North Reaning, Mass I do lots of pc work up your way and see them stringing a lot of that area as well as leading it into peabody. I hope they do this it's the first place I will look to buy a new house.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
| | another lie? .. after Verizon stole 3 billion out of PA do you actually think they are for real? | |
| | |  Cable's Response
| |
| | | Let's get it on First off, I think this is great. I can see no difference between roadrunner and this technology. Verizon should be treated like the cable companies. The only difference is the bandwidth. Fiber optic on the premise only makes sence. The only people that will try to slow it down is the old crankers still working at the fcc, which whom by the way are causing all the trouble, I think. Aren't there some communities wired up and online with fiber anyway's? Thirty mega-bit, here we come! | |
| | | | Re: Let's get it on said by todd987:
Thirty mega-bit, here we come!
Yah you wish. | |
|
 jarablueAlways be true to yourself
join:2001-06-11
Boxborough, MA | 1 million users by years end yet in Worcester... I can't even get plain old 512/512 dsl. Good going Verizon. Must be nice to have on A$$ sided network under your belt. | |
|  RynoThe WandererPremium
join:2001-04-07
Danielsville, PA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| coughBScough Another BS way to suck money out of the government in a BS cover tactic. how they are providing fiber to this many people while so many are without basic dsl is beyond me. Personally I live a mile from a RT that has had fiber for 7 years and they won't turn it up to give me (or anyone in my neighborhood) dsl. | |
| | markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | Re: coughBScough I still don't see why municipalities don't put up their own fiber, then bid out the ends to the providers. The municipality owns the line... the customers pay for the data/phone/TV traveling over it. If my idiotic representatives would have taken their 3 Billion and laid their own fiber lines with it, I'd have fiber by now!
I also see nothing wrong with treating these new fiber lines the same way we currently treat our power lines. You pay a fee for 'generation' and 'transmission'. The company that laid the plant gets the transmission money, the company that the consumer chooses to make the electricity gets the generation money... do the same! Open the lines. Then let the customers choose between SBC, Verizon, Earthlink, BellSouth, etc... DirectTV, Cox, Comcast, etc... Verizon, SBC, BellSouth, MCI, Sprint, etc.... and Verizon, regardless of WHO you choose for data, TV, phone; still charges a 'transmission' fee for investing and maintaining the lines. Problem solved! The company spending the money to lay the fiber still gets paid. That's deregulation in my book, but I will never live long enough to see it. | |
|
| | FTTP means no competition, period The Verizon proposal is chilling. It means a total cutoff of third-party information to their ratepayers!
Right now, if you're served by Verizon copper, you have a choice. You can make a "local" dial-up call to an ISP, at maybe 24 kbps, or faster if you're lucky. You can subscribe to an ISP who purchases Verizon's telecom DSL service. Or you can subscribe to an ISP whose DSL comes from a CLEC, who uses Verizon's copper.
In the first case (dial-up), you can only do this because the FCC has ruled that calls to ISPs are jurisdictionally interstate but must be retail-billed as local calls. That "ESP Exemption" sticks in their craw; every few years VZ asks for the right to charge for ISP calls the way they charge LD providers. It's nicknamed the "modem tax" and it's not completely dead, just not something that can be discussed by the FCC in an election year.
In the second case (Verizon DSL), Verizon's common carrier obligation requires them, like any LEC (yes, even a CLEC), to sell telecom service to any appropriately-situated party that requests it. So lots of ISPs buy DSL from Verizon. Their wholesale price, thanks to the FCC, is roughly the same as their retail DSL+Internet service price (around $30/mo depeding on volume, plus upstream linkage). So it's not too competitive except for business. But it is an option. The FCC has, however, in long-pending docket 02-33, proposed removing that obligation from DSL. Thus Verizon (and every other ILEC) would be allowed to cut off every independent ISP. Powell's sitting on that one for now with no decision made.
In the Triennial Review order last year, in a part that was approved by the court, the FCC ruled that FTTP need not be shared with CLECs, except that if it's an overbuild of copper, then they have to make a single analog voice-grade channel available to CLECs, for narrowband voice service use. If it's a "green field" FTTH, and there is no existing copper (which a CLEC would be able to use, if it were an overbuild), then the CLEC gets no access whatsoever. The CLEC would literally need to dig their own trench. As if the typical subdivision community association would allow it, or as if it were economically possible.
Cable modem services are not common carriage. That rankles phone companies a little, but only becuase they want to use it as an excuse to get out of the obligations that came with their monopolies. Now if Verizon gets to treat that monopoly FTTP as not common carriage, then indeed your only ISP choice in such a home would be Verizon Online. And as a non-regulated ISP, they would have an absolute right, if they chose to exercise it, to:
* censor your web browsing, so you can't read sites that they or their friends in Washington don't want you to read
* censor your email
* block you from sending or reading email except through their filtered servers
* block FTP, peer-to-peer, and any other ports they felt like
* block VoIP, heuristically detecting it via Layer 7 monitoring of every open port. (And I've seen the box that can do this.)
But hey, Mike Powell thinks that this is good, because you'll be able to watch Fox News on your computer really fast. | |
| | |  Welcome to True Broadband
just shutup and wait, or bug em and have em install it quick. anyone know which 9 states besides florida and texas they will be getting service to? | |
|
| |
|
|
·
