Pro/Con articles on Tauzin-Dingell Bill → I don't get it

Many of you seem to take "broadband access" WAY too serious. You act as if it's a Constitutional Right. (It's not BTW)

I have DSL. If for some reason my CLEC went under I surely wouldn't be picketing my ILEC and raising hell for outcome. It's unfortunate but that's business. Nothing's guaranteed.

Nobody is claiming a civil rights violation here.
It's about competition, fair practices, and choice to the consumer.
The ILECs have not played fair under the TA1996. Tauzen-Dingell will ELIMINATE *ALL* restrictions on the RBOCs specifically, whether they're talking about the originally agreed to "unbundling of network elements" specifically copper loops, or everything else, such as fiber facilities under Pronto.
If TD passes then the RBOCs will *CLOSE* all facilities to competitors, because the language of TD would allow them to do so. READ the language of the bill. It's clear when you read it and comprehend what's on the paper.
When the facilities are closed we will see the return to monopolistic control of Telecom infrastructure, circa the last 100 years....prices will soar, broadband offerings will dwindle, innovation will be stifled, and consumers lose.
Broadband offerings will be reduced to what the Bells want you to have, and they will be in no rush to innovate nor would they be under any pressure to if TD passes.
It would be a government-subsidized return of stylistic autonomy to the Bells to do what they want....anyone remember why ATT was broken up in 1984? I remember...why would we want a return to that era? You tell me.

said by BrianDamage:

---

When the facilities are closed we will see the return to monopolistic control of Telecom infrastructure, circa the last 100 years....prices will soar, broadband offerings will dwindle, innovation will be stifled, and consumers lose.
Broadband offerings will be reduced to what the Bells want you to have, and they will be in no rush to innovate nor would they be under any pressure to if TD passes.
It would be a government-subsidized return of stylistic autonomy to the Bells to do what they want....anyone remember why ATT was broken up in 1984? I remember...why would we want a return to that era? You tell me.

---

This supposes that the bell have the ability to control all broadband technologies. SBC does not control cable, AT&T does. SBC does not control wireless, Sprint has a strong lead. Satellite? DirectTV.

What you are talking about is a "monopoly" on DSL service, which may or may not be the best solution for people in the future. If SBC were to act as you suggest, the cable/wireless/other technologies would take market share and customers would benefit. Without T-D, or something like it that gives a profit incentive, these technologies will only be deployed in areas served by DSL in order to compete, leaving many people without access.

In the last century, we tolerated a true monopoly on telephone service in exchange for universal coverage . I think it worked out pretty well (as I use my dial up to post this). Now telephone services are under pressure from cell technology and VOIP. Why isn't universal access to broadband a good trade off for a DSL "monopoly"? Wouldn't the DSL "monopoly" have to compete with new technologies?

3G and other wireless access is coming. These companies are building their own infrastructure, one that will not be controlled by RBOCs. Cable access is moving along at a good rate. Wouldn't the RBOCs have to compete here as well?

If you are a fan of DSL Technology and believe that it is the future of broadband, wouldn't you want to be able to compete effectively with these new "threats"?

Personally, I want DSL now, but I see it only as a temporary solution until 3G service becomes available. I believe in 3G and expect it to drive DSL out of business unless there is some huge breakthrough in land line technology. This breakthrough will not happen if the FCC/ICC continues to keep their boot on the throat of SBC/Ameritech.

I am so sick of people saying that competing industries make a company not a monopoly. Saying cable is not a monopoly because of satellite is like saying that airlines don't have monopolies over certain routes because you could always take a helicopter instead of an airplane. Cable is only not a monopoly if there is another competing CABLE company for people to choose. In the same light, an RBOC is only not a monopoly if there is another phone company offering a complete end-to-end service on it's own equipment.

said by 2farfromCO:

---

I am so sick of people saying that competing industries make a company not a monopoly. Saying cable is not a monopoly because of satellite is like saying that airlines don't have monopolies over certain routes because you could always take a helicopter instead of an airplane. Cable is only not a monopoly if there is another competing CABLE company for people to choose. In the same light, an RBOC is only not a monopoly if there is another phone company offering a complete end-to-end service on it's own equipment.

---

I am sorry you are sick of it, but I am afraid you will hear more of it because it is true. There is no better example of substitution than broadband technologies.

Do you really care where the bandwidth comes from? What difference does it make to the consumer if his bandwidth comes from the TV cable, telephone line or over the air via wireless? If you had DSL, Cable and Wireless available to you(I wish I did!), wouldn't you compare them directly against one another? Wouldn't you take the service with the best price/performance even if it was from the dreadded ILEC?

If there is no competition to cable TV from satellite, why does AT&T run the "If you have a dish, you are a moron" ads on my system every break?

As far as the airline analogy, you can take a train, a bus, your car, another airline or for fans of dial-up you could walk. All of these options are available. If the airplane is still be best price/performance, you take the plane. If the airline has a 75% crash rate, you take some alternative. You still get where you are going. Once you arrive, who cares how you got there.

Ok, imagine it stated like this:

Let's say you DID have a choice between DSL, Cable, and Wireless.

Here's the point: All of them would offer broadband, about the same speed, same level of service, and at a nice high and very COINCIDENTALLY identical price tag... and when one raised prices, so would the other two.

Do you really have competition? No. You have three separate but equal monopolies to choose from, none competing with each other.

said by KrK:

---

Ok, imagine it stated like this:

Let's say you DID have a choice between DSL, Cable, and Wireless.

Here's the point: All of them would offer broadband, about the same speed, same level of service, and at a nice high and very COINCIDENTALLY identical price tag... and when one raised prices, so would the other two.

Do you really have competition? No. You have three separate but equal monopolies to choose from, none competing with each other.

---

Ok, then you have a problem. Unless there is some new technology that would break this deadlock, the consumer has to choose between 3 evils.

I would still prefer that to what I have now, which is nothing. I can choose dial-up or a trip to my local library for filtered access.

I doubt that all these companies would be able to get together to run this scam. If they could we would not have the vigorous competition between cable and satellite TV, Jewel/Ocso and Dominicks grocery stores, Speedway vs. Clark gas stations, Sprint PCS vs Verizon and AT&T wireless, Coke vs. Pepsi. The lure of more market share will make even two competing companies clash, let alone 3 or more.

The problem comes when one of the competors is given an artificial advantage or disadvantage and there is only one way to get the product or service. All of these services are interchangable, if SBC/Ameritech is beaten down by the FCC/ICC, Cable wins because Sprint Broadband is not generally available. The better the availability of access the more the providers will have to compete.

There still needs to be competition in each of these arenas. To point an analogy you made: If you take an airplane you have a choice of airlines. If you take a train you have a choice of railway services.

They use the same lines (railroad tracks and skyways) as their competition. Some airlines/railways can offer different rates, different options, and quality of service. If there were only ONE airline you can take and that airline did nothing to give you quality service and innovative technologies then you're screwed. Same with train, boat, bus or whatever.

Before AT&T had to compete service was way below par. You might not have noticed it if you never had a problem on your end, but if you did you would have had to go through a quagmire of apathy to get nothing. We used to have a saying about the phone company then: "Got a problem? Who cares? We are the phone company and there is nothing you can do about it." Ask businesses how things were before competition in the Bells. Ask anybody who had problems with service what they had to go through to get anything done. Without competition these "business as usual" tactics will slowly come back.

DSL is already in a competitive stance. Yes the current CLECs are treading water trying to stay afloat but that doesn't mean others can't join the fray. New CLEC's who have learned from the mistakes of others and can pick up where Northpoint and Rhythms left off as far as offering many choices of travel. Why go back to no competition? Why go back to a mentality that says, "You're getting DSL this way and only this way and you're going to like it or else" attitude? The genie is already out of the bottle. The breath of innovation and service has already been introduced.

If that's the case then ALL of these broadband technologies need to truly compete. Not just DSL but cable, wireless, fiber, and whatever else comes our way. Then, and only then, can the American concept of a free market really work.

said by SRFireside:

---

There still needs to be competition in each of these arenas. To point an analogy you made: If you take an airplane you have a choice of airlines. If you take a train you have a choice of railway services.

They use the same lines (railroad tracks and skyways) as their competition. Some airlines/railways can offer different rates, different options, and quality of service. If there were only ONE airline you can take and that airline did nothing to give you quality service and innovative technologies then you're screwed. Same with train, boat, bus or whatever.

---

Madmark didn't buy that argument when I made 3 posts ahead of yours. Look at that history. I think it's a valid analogy. Yeah, you COULD chose rail or helicopter transportation if you were getting ripped off by the monopoly airlines, but these serve different markets. Just like cable and satellite. They are completely different markets that have similar functions just like rail, helicopter, and airplane. I just don't think madmark is going to buy it.

quote:

---

Do you really care where the bandwidth comes from? What difference does it make to the consumer if his bandwidth comes from the TV cable, telephone line or over the air via wireless? If you had DSL, Cable and Wireless available to you(I wish I did!), wouldn't you compare them directly against one another? Wouldn't you take the service with the best price/performance even if it was from the dreadded ILEC?

---

YES!!!...i would take service from the dreaded ILEC if they had the best price/performance, but they dont!!. Hell!...I even called them FIRST when I was researching the BEST DSL service to suit the needs of my small network, but when I posed some technical questions (such as routing,VPN,DNS,running servers etc.)to their sales representive all he could answer with was: "maybe a T1 line would suit your needs better, I can transfer you?",..LOL!, that would be real cost effective for me. When I called the CLEC providers, they had all the answers and then some and the service/TOS blew away what the ILEC offered me, they actually seemed like they WANTED my business!!!!, and Ive been with them ever since and couldn't be more pleased with the service & performance (I pay $129.00 a month and its worth every penny).

If the ILEC's want to be the sole providers of DSL, it seems they are targeting the home user who doesnt care what the services consist of and wants to download his porn faster, dont get me wrong there is a market for that, but they are leaving out the power user (gamer), small business & computer entheusiest who wants the BEST possible DSL technology they can get at a price they want to pay (ya now...ya get what you pay for), how long can they pass off cheap modems, filters,tech support reading from scrpts, dial on demand/winpoet PPPOE software overhead to the serious tech head who really knows what the best DSL technology & service consists of, particularly the person who has had great SDSL service from a CLEC. Eveyone is focused on who gets acsess to facilities and it seems to me people are overlooking the most important part...the quality of DSL technology services offered by both parties, and from my experiences with both, the ILEC's lose in this department and if everyone wants them to be the sole providers of DSL, going on PURE DSL TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES provided...then we are all in trouble, DSL will die...

Regards
Shark...

said by SRFireside:

---

If you take an airplane you have a choice of airlines. If you take a train you have a choice of railway services. They use the same lines (railroad tracks and skyways) as their competition.

---

Actually, railroad tracks are privately-owned entities and are usually only shared with Amtrak for passenger service. Freight is still moved by the company that owns the line. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a CSX or Norfolk Southern locomotive pass by? In Texas, you would primarily see Union Pacific or Burlington Northern & Santa Fe locomotives.

The skyways, however, are open to all and very tightly regulated by the government.

whatever

WAY too serious