Slashdot Mirror
Tauzin-Dingell Up for Vote Soon
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Just received this letter from my ISP, one of the oldest in existence. A study here lays out the basics on the bill and why it's a bad idea. The bill retracts the telecommunications act of '96 which forces the phone giants to share the nation's phone lines (which are in public trust). Looks like it's time to write those pesky congressmen again." Too late to write. Call. Tauzin-Dingell, up for vote on Wednesday, would eliminate all the requirements on the four remaining Baby Bells to play fair with competing telecom providers. "Sure Covad, you can co-locate your DSL equipment in our switching offices - our deregulated rate is only $10,000/day/piece of equipment." It's instant death for all DSL providers except Verizon, SBC, Qwest and BellSouth.
- Covad (fucked from the get-go, but they blame Verizon)
- Northpoint (RIP)
- "DirecTV DSL" (they are taking *huge* losses, just like the rest of
Hughes)
- Tung Communications (who?)
DSL service is an economy of scale, and carving it up amongst a dozen competitors in the same small geographical area will ensure that they will all sell at a loss and die. It's simple Economics 101.Bill
It's not like the Telco act of '96 was of any help. The Telcos don't care and use the loopholes, DSL isn't really available everywhere, no matter what James Earl Jones says, and cable/satellite is just as inexpensive and fast.
I have friends that worked for CLECs that put equipment in ILEC COs. Sure Verizon would let you in the building, but want to use the bathroom? Sorry, can't do that, you'll have to go somewhere else. Want to come back in? Sorry, security isn't here right now and we can't let you in....
Let's be serious, folks.
Our government doesn't seem to give two sh*ts about monopolistic tech corporations. One word: Microsoft.
Apparently, the cool thing now is to cut taxes while spending record amounts on making our country powerful enough to take over the entire world, and possibly the whole Milky Way (just give them time).
I'm not sure how we as Americans can even sleep at night when we have someone with the sophistication of a 4th grader running our country (Duuuhhh-bya).
Unfortunately, I think it's going to be "long live Verizon et al".
The bill isn't going to kill the DSL providers. They're already dead. They were killed because the telcos wanted them to die. The letter of the law says that other companies (Covad) have to have access, but it doesn't say anything about the phone companies making life easy for the DSL companies. That's the real problem - the two were never on an equal footing. This bill won't help that at all, but it's not the end of the world either.
Ok, this pisses me off. Now that I've turned 18, what's the process for getting in touch with the people who can shoot this down? Where do I find out their info? What should I say?
The scale benefits of providing DSL are not that great. It is nothing like making cars, for example.
Even a small DSL provider can get the software they need to minimize administrative costs, and if bandwidth is a comodity, as it should be, that is more or less all they need.
There are some benefits of scale in the equipment but that is not a big deal.
Smaller ISPs may have benefits of finding a niche market or serving customers better.
In fact before DSL thousands of smaller providers thrived selling basic dialup, and made profit, despite AOl's economy of scale.
This is the kind of argument that is being used by corporate america to monopolize all our communication media. It was used for radio and now it is used for small ISPs.
This argument is utter bullshit.
But suppose it is true. Then why not let those DSL providers die naturaly? Why allow the telecom companies to lock them out? If someone is lobbying for a lock out that means they are affraid of the competition.
DSL providers need to buy a large amount of bandwidth (to support bursting) and oversell it to maintain a competitive edge. Since bandwidth gets cheaper as you buy more of it, many pieces of an installation (such as a DSLAM and routers) are large one-time costs that serve dozens of users, and you need a *lot* of users to be able to afford a barely minimal (T1) line, the provision of DSL service is most decidedly an economy of scale.
Other points to look at would be: tech support and billing (textbook examples of economies of scale), and geographical risk/load balancing.
-AC (for obvious reasons)
Just because one news item doesn't affect every person on the face of the globe, does not make it completely irrelevant. By your logic, news of a natural disaster in Africa shouldn't make the news because not everyone is affected.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
Read the bill, or at least the summary at the top. Unfortunately, the Congress might actually have our (the people's) best interests at heart. Also unfortunately, the telcos and cable company operators just aren't interested in EITHER opening to competition OR giving good service.
What we THOUGHT was that the telecom act of 96 would level the playing field for smaller players. This hasn't happened, for reasons you see in other posts in this thread.
What we THOUGHT was that technology would rapidly get better, yielding higher bandwidth and a greater ability to get beyond the coupla-kilometers limit. There's been progress, but basically we're still stuck with the same technology as in '96 and before.
What we THOUGHT was that other players (power companies, wireless companies and funky stuff like blimps flying around over cities) would provoke telcos & cable companies to do better. But apart from satelite Internet (which is too slow for gaming and most other interactive use), there are not viable alternatives for most people.
Basically, things have moved more slowly than we, the geeks, thought they would, and the cable companies and telcos have been able to have their way: little competition, top price, and little need for good service.
There's still hope for new technologies and other developments (like municipalities' interest in WLANs) that might give hope to competition for xDSL and cable modem service for "broadband" Internet service. But it doesn't look like there's any hope that any sort of regulation will create real improvements for most users (or wannabe users) for today's "broadband" Internet services.
Regardless of its provisions, any bill on the subject of telecom which is passed by Congress will cause your phone and cable bill to go up.
Go ahead and say it: Our government doesn't give two goddam squirty shits about anything but spreading the legs of the Lady of Justice for the highest fucking bidder.
And no, I'm not sorry for the swearing. Let's not be afraid to say what we mean. We have to quit couching our words in trivial obfuscations so we don't offend the perpetually victimized. It won't be long before the rearward penetration reaches our mouths and we are all forced to speak up. But by then it will be too late. Oh well. We're all doomed to whatever fate the AOL/TW's of the world wish for us anyway.
I was just going to moderate the parent comment up, but decided to speak my peace instead. Sometimes I hate America. Its dim-bulb of a leader doesn't help.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
That may be true, but sooner or later they'll monopolize themselves into a full consumer revolt. Some people will just forget about landlines.
My Verizon bill just went up to $27 for local service with no long distance and no extra features. They just raised the Interstate Subscriber Line Charge from $3.50 to $5. My cellphone bill (ironically also w/ Verizon) is $40 with free long distance, voicemail, call waiting, and more night and weekend minutes than I'll ever use. If I ever stop procrastinating and get the cable modem, these guys are outta here!
In retrospect, it's fairly obvious that the Bell System was broken up in the wrong place. Local and long distance service have a rather blurry line between them at this point. With colocation facilities available for CLEC's, the thing everyone needs access to is the 'last mile' local loop. And that's exactly where the split needs to be.
Your local telco should be nothing more than a company that provisions local loops and provides colocation facilities for LEC's. Not ILEC's, not CLEC's, just LEC's. If they provide the local loop, and only the local loop, no one company has an unfair advantage.
At that point, the various LEC's could be completely deregulated. They can provide local dial tone, long distance, Internet service, digital audio/video, whatever... it doesn't matter, because nobody would have this big monster competitor that they also have to buy a piece of their service from.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
The parent post worries me. If you don't know how to hit Google and type in "House of Representatives", how can you be so sure of your position on this bill?
I am seeing way too many kneejerk "Monopolies stink! More regulation!" posts on this story, and they remind me of the soccer moms who will vote for anyone who says "Think of the children!"
Please at least try to see both sides of an issue before you get involved in the political arena. All the information and opinions are online for those who want to read them.
grep -ri 'should work'