Slashdot Mirror
Baby Bells Victorious Over Sharing Rules
An Anonymous Coward sent in somewhat troubling news for people who like high-speed internet access at reasonable prices: the Baby Bells have won their legal challenge of FCC rules requiring them to accomodate competitors providing high-speed internet access. The FCC has already been moving toward this on its own (the FCC is headed by political appointees appointed by the President), but this court decision will accelerate it: neither the current FCC nor the courts are going to stop the Bells from squeezing out their competition. There's a CNet story and the decision is online.
Yeah, that d*mn president. If it weren't for that un-elected president, everything would be soft and pretty, the Sept. 11 attacks wouldn't have happened, and all the geeks on /. would have gotten laid by now.
I'm not saying I approve of everything GWB does, but give it a rest, already.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
As if DSL wasn't having enough problems, the Baby Bells finally beat the line sharing rules. This is one of those victories that I'm not sure the ILECs really want to have. It's just going to slow broadband adoption (less competition) and allow the Bells to sit on their fat T-1 revenues.
Ugh.
Lots of petrified grits
BellSouth, Verizon and SBC Communications hailed the decision as conforming with FCC Chairman Michael Powell's plans for the industry.
Powell's job must be so easy - just let the market decide! Then take a nap. If anything really important comes up ask Dad in the State Dept, he'll know what to do.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I think companies here in North America still have a lot to learn about cooperation as a method of business. I mean, we have incompatible cell phone standards, lots of proprietary interfaces, etc. The real value in any economy comes from trade - which is basically different things interacting. The more we create closed off little worlds, the worse we do, and yet it seems that's all North American businesses are interested in these days!
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
Doh! Just my early 2 cents, but a company with such broad infrastructure that is essentially a public utillity should be required to share with everyone given a reasonable exchange for services or money. It's not like every mom and pop ISP is going to be able to run FIDDI rings around your local neighborhood to provide high-speed access.
In Ontario at least you don't have to get your DSL through the phone company.
In larger areas you can choose from cable or DSL through either hte phone co or someone else.
"...troubling news for people who like high-speed internet access at reasonable prices..."
It's also bads news for freedom of speech
Whereas in a competitive environment ISPs can compete for savvy customers by touting their lack of restrictive practices (such as server-side censorship software that eliminates client-side choice), now they'll be more worried about not offending the big-hitters like the Christian lobbying groups who have the Washington-level power to disrupt their cosy monopolies.
Fortunately, I've been able to run with a local ISP, QX.net, on top of that DSL line. They're top drawer. Call their office and you get a technically proficient human being. You all know well enough what Verizon is like...
This sucks, but not as bad has shutting out a local ISP. The day I have to sign up Verizon as my ISP is the day I move to the China moonbase.
Obligatory Princess Leia reference: "The more they tighten their grip, the more users will slip through their fingers."
Comeptition is reduced, but it is his opinion that progress will occur more rapidly nonetheless. It is certainly true that PacBell was in no rush to distribute new equipment and services that would enrich Covad (hence the "cancellation of Project Pronto).
If a person or group of people wanted to set up their own broadband wiring throughout a small town, what would be necessary?
I'm not talking about the physical components (the wiring, the routers, etc). Are there any legal requirements that have to be met? Do you need to get eminent domain to run over (or under) roads, or simply get permission from the land owners? Is there any way we can bypass the bells entirely?
Duh. But seriously, the courts broke up the bells for a reason, and it wasn't so they could be all bought out into a monopoly again. Forcing 3rd parties to lease their networks will kill the 3rd parties.
Competition will be destroyed. This could easily lead to a situation within a year that leaves SBC/Verizon as the only dsl carriers, and only 2-3 overpriced cable carriers for the nation.
But the point is - the telecoms own the wiring from the switch to your house. Why should government dictate what the owner of that wire has to do with it? Allowing other DSL providers to use that infrastructure is going to cost the Bells money. So I really feel that the court is correct in this matter.
However, I don't want to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for my DSL line. And I think the way to do this is to offer a true competitor.. maybe it's the cable companies and cable modems, maybe its 802.11 wireless, maybe it's satellite transmission, maybe it's something that hasn't even been thought up yet, but there will be a competitor.
And I don't think this is a monopoly any more then I think DISH Network is after buying Direct TV.. they still have to compete with cable companies.. much the same way DSL is still going to have to compete with cable modems, etc. They're selling broadband access, and there will be multiple ways to get it.
This court decision is not the end of the world, folks.
Now I just have to prepare myself to be modded down.. ;)
Why should the baby bells have to provide the infrastructure for their competition? This decision is actually better in the long term. In case you haven't noticed, customer service has gone way down since the bells were forced to open their phone lines up. What happens when an entire neighborhood no longer uses a bell? Why shouldn't bell just pull out of that neighborhood and no longer support those lines? Then what happens? Yep, the company leasing the lines can't help the customers because they don't know what they're doing or they don't have the knowledge the bells do of the system in place.
Broadband suffers from the same thing. If you want cheap broadband, wait 20 years. If you want high speed access now, expect (and be willing to pay). And if you want competition, then be willing to pay higher (should be only to begin with) prices while infrastructure is being laid. The baby bells should not be required to lay the infrastructure for their competition. If someone wants to compete, that's fine, but they should also be willing to put down the money required and set up their own infrastructure, instead of trying to build on top of the bells' hard work.
If 76 Trombones really led the big parade, why did they have anyone else in it?
The court also overturned a 1999 rule that required the dominant carriers to share a portion of a local line into a home so that the customer could have a different provider for DSL (digital subscriber line) service, but keep their local telephone provider.
I wonder how often the existing line was suitable for DSL anyway. Didn't seem like it was the case in SNET country, anyway. If they are saying that you have to run a separate copper line, that's not such a big deal except that I expect that, in areas where they can get away with it, bells charge a lot more for a second line that will be used for DSL than they do for one that will be used for POTS, even if they would be conditioned the same in either case
"The commission's own findings repeatedly confirm both the robust competition and the dominance of cable in the broadband market," Williams said.
So they are trying to look at the total competition picture rather than just DSL vs. DSL. Probably a good idea. The problem with all this is that telcos have all kinds of weird deals with state and local gov'ts for what can be provided, etc. There are all kinds of unintended consequences whenever changes are made that end up muddying the waters. Sucks. It also sucks a lot to have to depend on your competitor for your service to work. As long as the bells get to own the wires and sell networking that runs on the wires, providing DSL will be messy.
Forgive the flight of fancy here, but did anybody notice that in the Matrix, *EVERYBODY* was using cell phones, and the only people interested in land lines were Neo and his gang? Perhaps there's a reason for this...
Here in Baltimore, Verizon has had a terrible track record in keeping my land line running properly. On a good day with good luck, I MIGHT connect a dialup at 28.8. My line is often marred with static and other "artifacts". But since I'm in the great megacity of the eastern seaboard, there are so many cellphone companies competing that Verizon must figure I have one of those anyways, and don't really need good, consistent, and reliable POTS service. But without reliable POTS lines, there's nothing for DSL to carry over! So at least here, Verizon may very likely cheer and pat itself on the back for winning this ruling, then turn around and realize their equipment is so outdated (from neglect, afterall, everyone's using cell phones) and their users gone (Besides the @Home fiasco, my cable access has been the model of speed and reliability) that they no longer have a viable business from which to profit!
I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
completely failed to consider the relevance of competition in broadband services coming from cable (and to a lesser extent satellite). We agree.
Cable is absolutely NO competition for DSL. My requirement was
1) static IP
2) low price
3) allows servers. I run mail and http servers.
My directtvdsl is $49 a month with a static IP. If they take this away, I'm screwed. I'll have to pay a bundle to get the same service from the phone company.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Right, becuase there are lot's of ISP's with the ability to provide the same large-scale mult-million dollar infrastructure that the baby bells aquired only by being a public utility.
This is a sham to try and boost the economy and keep us po folks from surfing our pr0n !
Where should we put that hole in your head?
In case you haven't noticed, the Baby Bells are hurting right now. Remember the telecom meltdown?
US West (aka Qwest) just had their bond status downgraded to junk. This is the worst example, but the others aren't doing so hot these days, either.
Wake me up when Ford is the only company that is allowed to provide cars in my area.
--
E_NOSIG
One of the biggest barriers of bringing DSL to my community (other than it's small size) is the fact that after investing a rather large chunk of capital in equipment, the phone company would have to share access to competitors.
I'm all for competition, but when that very competition is delaying rollout by years, I see this as a partial win.
For those who already have the access they want, they probably have options such as DSL and Cable, and maybe even Wireless. I have none of those. When the phone company already has to compete with Cable and Wireless, they won't even enter a market when they have to make the investment in equipment that other get to use to add to the level of competition.
Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
I think the point is that the infrastructure the Baby Bells are so keen to shut competitors out of was originally provided by public funding (much like highways).
So lets say the government privatises highways, selling them all to Ford. Ford would just have won the right to block Kia-made cars from using the on-ramp.
Reduced competition & corruption (aka lobbiest pay-offs) are going to rot the US economy from the inside. Where does the US rank in the world now for broadband penetration/adoption??? Further and futher behind....
is coming soon. Couple this with the FCC widenning the frequency spectrum and broadband providers wont depend on the Baby Bells' backbone for long. I'd be more concerned with how this effects businesses requiring high-speed lines and the prices of OC3 or even T1 lines, more concerned than over my personal cable line anyway.
put the what in the where?
Kia made the Ford Aspire & Festiva, and had a relationship with Mazda on the 323 (Though I'm not sure the extent of that relationship).
The whole GM Geo line was nothing but Japanese cars.
Geo Metro = Suzuki Swift
Geo Tracker = Suzuki Sidekick
Geo Storm = Izuzu Something
Geo Prism = Toyota Corolla
Chrysler and Misubishi shared cars like the Talon and the 3000GT/Stealth.
Heck, right now, if you can buy a Toyota Matrix from Pontiac as the "Vibe". So maybe a better analogy could have been drawn than the car industry.
Aren't we in the middle of a recession?
And isn't this going to destroy the economy even more?
"Let's give the big companies more reason to charge little companies more and put them out of business."
WooHoo.
Great idea.
I'm excited.
If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
This is really troubling. As an ISP in QWEST territory it might spell trouble for us in terms of the Internet service we provide to our clients.
All they have to do is declare us a competitor instead of a client, and poof! there it goes.
Furthermore, lets not forget that the BELLS get huge tax breaks and subsidies to build out the wiring to provide service.
All those Universal Service Fee's we pay on our lines to help make sure that EVERYONE gets phone service.
I think to some extent that this will eventually get challenged and reversed. Much in the same way MCI and Sprint and the cast of THOUSANDS of small long distance providers have the right to serve your LD needs on your ILEC provided lines, so should the physical plant be open as well.
Of course, you're getting this IMHO from a guy that thinks the cable companies should be open as well, given THEIR tax breaks etc.
Then again, this might help force Neighborhood Wireless Access Points to more of a real thing....then again we have other special-interest-group-companies that want to block up the airwaves and control them. Anyone remember XM's challenge to 802.11 that got essentially rejected?
</flame off>
;)
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
Paint me green and call me a troll, but michael do you always have to somehow blame the President for everything that goes wrong in the world? Why not just post the news and let the reader decide for him/herself on what to think?
Try Qwest. They lie about everything, make you wait forever for anything to get accomplished, and their billing department has to rival the IRS when it comes to complexity of an organization.
I've had Verizon (DSL, home phone, still have Verizon Wireless). I've had Qwest (DSL, home phone). I had good service from Verizon, and most definately did NOT from Qwest.
As soon as AT&T digital cable is rolled out in my area, I'm dumping my landline and going with AT&T phone service over cable. Qwest will not get another cent from me, ever again.
It's a shame Qwest won't have to share their lines... Anything to make those bastards work for their money is fine with me.
The obvious answer is just move to cable, since cable companies want to provide phone service you should be able to choose who gives better service. Now if cable companies weren't even more evil that the worst baby bell.
Still, it is worth your while to keep checking out the compitition. If the bells see everyone switching to cable modems and cell phones they will respond (eventially). There are local 802.11 (and other licensed band are possible) networks to connect to. Satalite works great for some people.
Remember, you can turn this into a non-issue, but only if you tell everyone you know that there are options and they should check out cell phones (my cell phone is more talk time then I need, free long distance all for what a land line would be.) Cable is trying to get into the phone market. Let everyone blindly use the phone company, and the phone company has won. Tell people to compare service, and the phone company will start losing. Not everyone, but enough to affect the bottom line, and that is what will bring service to your neighborhood.
How would competition and QOS differ if instead of the phone company owning the wire, the consumer was able to buy that last stretch of cable to your home. Ignoring all bad factors such as having to replace a crappy cable yourself. What would the benefits be? You would be able to dictate what you wanted to run on the cable, who you wanted to run it and a variety of other things. People who want to replace their cables with optics could hire an 3rd party to replace their cable for them. Instead of hasseling with the phone company. Who more than likely won't replace your cable unless your whole neighbor needs replacing. People who want the good stuff can get it and those content with shitty copper can still have it.
Am I off my rocker or is there something to this?
There's a huge difference though. Kia didn't have to dig up every lawn in the US to start selling cars.
Competitive telecom companies aren't even allowed to dig up your lawn and attach wires to your house (Or to run a cable across your lawn to get to your neighbor's house). If you want competitive local loop access, you need to either force the incumbant providers to lease out their wire, or you need to let competitive telecom providers have access to private property to run cable. Which one of those do you think is more practical? (Consider that you don't need wire from more then one company to your house because you're presumably only going to buy one provider's service at a time).
If the fees are reasonable, and they aren't loosing money on the deal, then the incumbant phone companies should have nothing to complain about. They should be bending over backwards and kissing our asses for letting them exist in the first place. Not everybody gets to be an exception to the rule.
Note Covad's stock dropping 12.5% on this announcement, their days must truly be numbered now...
:-(
Also note the previous weeks price erosion (no doubt the cronies running the FCC/judiciary getting friends & family to sell short before the press release...). Why oh why can't I be a crooked public official on the corporate payroll!?!?
a victory for the cable modem industry since dsl will become increasingly less competetive (viva isdn). and hopefully this will spur even more interest in alternative routes like wireless.
I'm just glad I live in Canada where I have the choice between 3 different DSL providers or cable at about $35US/month. It seems like the states has really fumbled the ball when it comes to providing high speed Internet to everyone. The FCC should be creating more competition not less.
The Media Borg's Man in Washington
Their Man in Washington
Which is interesting, since "free trade" was a key part of his election platform. Since getting into office, he's slapped tariffs on steel, signed a huge farm-subsidy bill, and made a bunch of other dumb decisions which benefit the people who funded his campaign at the expense of free trade and fair competition. This move is just another drop in the bucket.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, you don't have to worry unless you have only one pair of telephone wires run to your house/office. The decision says it removes the "line sharing" stuff from a list of services that must be offered to CLECs without bundling. This is that the phone company can deny CLECs access to the loop already providing your voice phone service. They hinted at, but ultimately balked at deciding to throw out the whole unbundled service mandate list. It looks to me that Covad can demand a local loop to your house if there is a dry one available. Go to your box and find out how many pair you have!
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I know for a fact that this is really bad news for the city that I live in. Sprint owns all the phone lines here, and are notorious amongst local residents and (especially) businesses for being extraordinarily slow (as long as weeks) making installations and repairs. While Sprint does offer DSL in town, they masquerade IPs and have rather unreliable speeds. A regional telco exists that provides almost flawless service (less than an hour of downtime in the past two years) and gives you real IPs so that us geeks can operate servers and other nonsense on them. Suddenly, it appears as if this telco may no longer be able to service us and we'll have no comparable alternative to it.
When I signed up for their service, they had me a modem at my house and another ready on their end within 24 hours. I then sat for nearly THREE MONTHS waiting for Sprint to get off its ass and turn over the phone line, which as I understand it is a completely computerized process that requires almost no effort on their part. Sprint wouldn't talk to me because I wasn't technically a customer (the other telco was, they said) and all the other telco could do was keep asking them over and over to turn over the line. Finally, after running around in circles for months I had a lawyer friend of mine fax them a letter threatening legal action, whereupon the line was turned over less than 24 hours after sending the fax.
Since then, the wait hasn't been as long, though it's still generally between two and three weeks, which is unreasonably long for a 5-minute (if that) action. I can't imagine what it would be like here if Sprint wasn't even forced into competition with this other telco.
I wish we had another "real" party in the USA (the reform party of a few years ago was basically a "vote for me - these guys suck" party).
I feel like I'm stuck in a Douglas Adams novel:
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
It's strange that a country so concerned about security and stability would let its own citizens be manipulated and abused by commercial "governments".
So if the copper was worth more again, you don't think the government should step in if they actually wanted to dig up the wire and sell it?
I'm all for competition, but it seems to me that the flavor of "competition" these rules were designed for foster is an awfully strange beast. I can't think of any other industry where the larger firms are required to share their facilities with smaller competitors.
I think the basic problem with this approach is that someone has to decide what a "reasonable" price for access to Baby Bell lines is. If that price is too high, baby bells will be able to undercut them and they'll get driven out of business. However, if the price is set below the market rate, then the upstarts will forever be living parasitically off the efforts of the local Baby Bell, and will never have any incentive to build infrastructure of their own. As a result, the "competition" between the Baby Bell and the upstart competitors will be fought in the political arena over access to shared resources, rather than any sort of competition in the open market.
What ought to be happening is upstarts should be putting their own coax or fiber in the ground. Then there'd be no issue of who has to share their lines with whom. The problem is that state and local governments make this almost impossible, by signing exclusive contracts with a single cable or phone company and giving that company a de facto monopoly. Clearly all the regulatory hurdles to start a competing network is all but impossible.
It seems to me that the efforts of the geek community should be aimed at breaking down those political obstacles to new development, not taking sides in the pointless battle over how much the Baby Bells should have to "share" their facilities with competitors. As long as such "sharing" is the basis for competition, the Baby Bells will continue to dominate the market, and competing carriers will continue to place their stock in lobbying for more "access" to the entrenched monopoly's facilities rather than focusing on building competing infrastructure.
I pick getting kicked in your nuts.
Guess what, that is what YOU think.... I don't care what the CLEC has told you, if your community is small, they won't upgrade the equip until they have to. Their current thinking goes like this : 1. Small community - hey we can make a killing providing T-1's cause they have no other access. 2. DSL? If we do that, all our gravy from business service goes away, AND we make a lot less per pair due to the customer service issues etc. Not to mention bandwidth congestion on their backbone. So If you were a bell, and could charge 1,200 a month to a few businesses, or spend a good chunk of change to upgrade the CO's and then only get 35.00 a month which would you choose? The ONLY way a CLEC will upgrade their CO's in a small town or any other place, is when the bandwidth cat is out of the bag and someone else starts reaping the $$$......
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Let's get rid of the *rest* of the 1996 TCRA.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
completely failed to consider the relevance of competition in broadband services coming from cable (and to a lesser extent satellite). We agree.
Cable is absolutely NO competition for DSL.
You should be comparing companies, and not the medium they use for the service. Just because the cable company in your neighborhood doesn't offer static doesn't mean other neighborhood's don't. Same goes for hosting rules etc.
Guess what, in my neighborhood it's the cable that you can get a static ip with, and the DSL is dynamic (usually -- depends on the DSL provider).
So compare Rogers vs. Bell or whatever you folks have down in your neck of the woods, not just the service.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
TROLL!
Hyperbole
Confusion
TROLL!
Who paid for the local loop? AT&T? Where did they get that kind of cash? You would not be so irritated and confused if you knew the history of our phone system. Also, if you were to invest in joe6pack.net as a capital invetment in your own POPs with your own last-mile wiring, you would not be an RBOC subject to the regulations questioned by the decision we speak of. Therefore all of your economic arguments' examples are moot.
Calling someone else an ignorant fuck does not exclude you from being one yourself.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
but this will most assuredly go to the Supreme Court. No way will this be allowed to stand without a fight.
sulli
RTFJ.
Yea, so I barrow my neighbors car for 6 months, and pay him $250 a month while driving to my business, I find I keep running out of gas, because after all, my neighbor not only has a nice new car, but controls all the gas in the area (for miles). I can't seem to get to my business and make any money because my neighbor, when not out of gas, supplies me with gas that is no good and says "Sorry, that's all I've got." This meets my neighbors needs because he didn't want to share his car in the first place, he didn't want me to be able to afford the $250 it costs to even rent the car from him... thus successfully squelching all his competition like he has in the past. And when they throw me in the poor house, he parks it right next to his other 5,000 cars just like it. Then maybe you have a reasonable analogy. (Sorry folks, bad experiences with Verizon.) ;P
FLR
Where the hell do you live? In the frozen tundra?
CLEC's can dig up the yard and drop OC-192 fiber in your backyard if they damn well wish to. There are no restrictions to this (besides filing for the right permits, etc).
Now, if we bring the COST perspective into this then we see WHY CLECs don't drop in their own copper loops. It is "COST INEFFICIENT" for them to pony up the $$$$ of dropping a loop at a site only to have said customer ditch it six months later because they got a good deal on a cell phone from Joe's Cell Phones 'R Us.
Any CLEC would be more than happy to drop a fiber in your backyard, provided that you sign a five year contract promising to pay $50k/month.
B
Flamebait
Serious inquiries only.
Illinois took Ameritech to court last year over the same issues.
Illinois won. Now SBC has legal minimum service standards or they risk having to pay millions of dollars in refunds (again) or losing their charter to operate the CO (if the state legislature decides to get involved).
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
government should own the landlines. kinda the same way they own the roads. most people would consider telephone/broadband wiring essential infrastructure nowadays. So why don't we have the government treat it as a utility and the different companies compete for repair and lease rights?
If 76 Trombones really led the big parade, why did they have anyone else in it?
yes, it is unfortunate that some companies have large market shares in the telecommunications business, but it's silly to force them to bend over backwards for their competitors.
I find this especially irksome because I've been in the similar situation all my life: "no, charles, we will move slowly on this math because everybody else needs more help. I know you could move faster, but you could just help everybody else along"
In Illinois, when you pay to have a line installed, you bought the local loop(s) for however many pair they charged you to drop. I think the subloop (pole to your house) can be claimed by you. The rest of the loop is a grey area owned mostly by the phone company, but held in public trust by the charter granted to the phone company.
Can anyone refute/substantiate this?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Recession is two consecutive financial quarters with inflation that meets or exceeds growth.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
The problem with that theory is economies of scale. Most carriers have one or two engineers that cover a multi county area along with a cadre of techs that cover that same area. Now take that group of employees (which might cover 4 counties) and have them now cover the one county.
Your costs have now quadrupled. Guess where the money to pay for that is going to come from?
Also if it would be run like my water department is here, the price would vary by election year.
B
Flamebait
Serious inquiries only.
I can't believe the communist crap I am reading on this board.
What makes America great is that we arn't a pure capitalistic society... if we were, we would quicly slide into a dictatorship as companies gobble up smaller companies in order to form monopolies, etc. Further, we are not a pure socialistic society, private ownership is essential. What we are is a pretty-good ballence between the two extremes. Unfortunately, for the last 10-20 years the power has been getting out of ballence, with capitalistic forces now having more control then the democratic forces. This is clearly seen by the acquisations of congress people doign the bidding of companies instead of people.
Have you read Adam Smith's title called The Wealth of Nations? It rests on a principle of a competitive or free market economy; a competitive market being defined by many economists as one where no single supplier holds more than 20% of the marketspace, having 7 or more distinct direct competitors. Only under these circumstances will capitalistic markets bring the highest value to society. In marginalized situations, where a single company holds a large share of the marketplace there isn't a choice, it is called monopolistic.
Monopolies in general arn't bad, but a special class of monpoplies which provide for essential services are problematic. Telephone is essential in our day and age (ever try to get a job without a telephone number?) and the baby bells have a huge part of the marketshare for telephone and related land-line services.
So. What do we do with essential monopolies? There are two extremes forms of control; Democratic (one customer one vote) or Dictatorship. The latter choice is usually bad since, if left to its own devices, it will maximize profits by overcharing the customer, causing huge distortions in the economic system and undermining other markets and thus our free market economy. The former choice is not great, but variations of it are important to consider.
One form is to have government operate the smallest, most essential service of the business which cause it to be a monopoly. Our roads are good examples. The government owns them, but services to maintain the road (which can be competitive) are all farmed out to various companies who can bid. The government need not create the road signs, for example. The other form is to let a private dictatorship run it, but regulate the dictatorship. Unfortunately... there just arn't any other options!
As for the phone systems themselves, a bulk of the funding for these systems were initally provided by the government (the people) since setting up a phone infrastructure is a huge operation... thus to say that private enterprise has done this is just not true. Private funding for stuff is usually not long-term. More often than not, public funding for bring projects is the only way to get them done.
Your black and white charactization is just dead wrong. It isn't iorn grip of Washington that is the issue. Washington is just the government controlled by either Democratic or Capitalistic forces. In this case, we have yet another victory for the capitalistic force; which already has the bulk of the power. The more we allow this to happen the closer we come to having a pure dictatorship. By the way, if we were shifting to be totally socialist (everything decided by the people with equal weight), then I'd be arguing on the other side of the fence. This is a delicate ballence, not a black vs white issue. Becarefull for what you wish... you may just get it.
My Bad DOH!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I wish we had another "real" party in the USA (the reform party of a few years ago was basically a "vote for me - these guys suck" party).
Any third party that got to the point of winning would have become like one of the Big Two we have now anyway. It has more to do with the kind of personality that's attracted to that sort of work than anything else. People who act on principle typically don't fit in very well and, as a result, are not going to advance very high. A Ron Paul, for example, can get elected as a congressman and work very hard to do what he thinks is right, but is not going to get elected to president (even if he didn't run on the Libertarian party ticket again ;-) ). Even Senator is too much of a longshot.
Rather than hoping for better politicians, perhaps we should stop giving them more and more say over what we do. Just my $0.02.
I must of spent about 5 hours and 10 different phone calls trying to weasal my way into getting DSL with Verizon. My neighbors get it, North/South/East/West of my place, but apparently "Im To Far Away From The CO"
:(
So what that means, is I have to be ingenous as to getting a repair tech out to sort out my line becuase of my incompatibility for DSL. By law, they cant provide that service, becuase it locks out comptitors. Even though they are my local carrier and phone company and they own the systems.
So, my last attempt, is to have them bring in a second phone line. Maybe I will get lucky and be put on the same local loop as my neighbors instead of the one Im on that probably wraps me around the city to or three times. I'll know monday if this works. I HATE DIALUP
"The court also overturned a 1999 rule that required the dominant carriers to share a portion of a local line into a home so that the customer could have a different provider for DSL (digital subscriber line) service, but keep their local telephone provider."
What the article is not telling you is this same 1999 rule did not just require telephone companies to share their network with "competitors", it also required companies to do so at a price set by the FCC or some other administrative body. This price made it UNPROFITABLE to bother upgrading this network further.
As far as the last mile, there are other regulations that are being challenged now as well of which this ruling is one part. This decision is just one domino down and what will hopefully be a wave of deregulation. The issue with the "last mile" carriers is not the situation you propose, its the backbone carriers. If it was profitable for them to provide service to homes and use all the available bandwidth, they would.
I suggest you or someone else explain what it will take to get fibre into homes in the US. Who will do it, the government?
What happened to all those wonderful dreams of high speed internet access in 1999? Why is my high speed internet access much slower than it was in 1999? where is the progress?
Yes, the phone network and the big carriers acquired their wealth by using the government to enforce their monopoly status, but what is done is done. This does not justify screwing over AT&T, et al to MY detriment.
These regulations obviously did not help competition, because service got worse. How many people are happy with their DSL service? Why does it take months to get it? If you believe there are not problems with DSL... you are ignoring reality
These administrative codes were not just unjust and inconsistent with American ideas of freedom and liberty, they make my internet experience SUCK.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
The wire is theirs, the poles are theirs. The property their wire travels across is mine.
If they figure they want to "own" everything, fine. Make me an offer, or tear down the wire.
The Government granted them the right to cut through my property. I want something for that, other than being bonded into indentured servitude to a service needed to function in today's world.
Rights of way were "taken" on the basis that the utility would be regulated in the public interest, and that utility would be available to me. That was the compensation needed for taking one's property.
Now, you're suggesting the rules be changed to simple outright ownership by the utility. Fine, then the "rent" you're paying has stopped and I want properly compensated.
This actually got my parents "free cable". The poles ran over their property and the cable company started running the wire. Local magistrate said cable was not "health, safety, or the common good", and while the poles were owned by the power company, the right-of-way was not and could not be taken without consideration. Parents said that, unlike a phone, they had no need for cable.
The right of way was "taken", but the compensation was free cable as long as they owned the property. I thought they should have fought for a grant to the property, but they didn't want to fight it.
If the Internet was provided by the county(state FL) I live in.
Then you would only be able to use the Internet on Sat and Wed if you address ends in odd numbers or Sun and Tus is you address ends in even numbers and only between the hours of 4:00PM and 10:00 AM.
Oh, and I feel so bad for them too. The pain in my rectum after dealing with Qwest's idea of 'customer service' is disconcerting, at best.
- oZ
// i am here.
Wake me up when Ford is the only company that is allowed to provide cars in my area.
I'd prefer if you just let me sleep...
Part of the problem with Dish TV's argument is that the combination of DirecTV with them would somehow allow them to better compete with cable comanies, which is utter BS.
Both of the companies offer a heck of a lot more programming, clearer picture, 5.1 Dolby Digital on some channels, and a better value for the money, overall. However, DirecTV actually has some consumer choice with receivers and equipment...the main reason I prefer DirecTV over Dish...which uses inferior JVC equipment...and doesn't have tivo, last I was aware.
In competition with cable...if they think for a moment that satellite Internet access can somehow compete in a viable manner with cable and DSL, they are sadly mistaken. Two-way traffic over a satellite that's over 22,000 miles above the earth is going to present some incredible latency that gets clobbered by dialup.
Now, perhaps they could come up with some neat and funky antenna to use the 3 DirecTV satellites and the Dish satellites to get an ass-kicking amount of programming...but there is a point of reaching overkill.
In the old days of satellite, it was cool to have the 10' dish outside tuned to whatever I wanted to watch...but those days are over. Personally, I'm glad I can choose between Dish or DirecTV depending on my needs. It would be a mistake to create another monopoly in the terms of "competition".
The ideal way to promote competition would have been for municipalities and towns to have been wired and maintained by a neutral facility, handing off circuits to whatever telco wanted to set up shop...then you have 100 LECs in the CO, and since none of them owned the wires, you could choose your provider in a manner as simply as moving a jumper. It's nice to dream.
Personally, I think the establishment that is presenting a viable challenge to the cable and telcos is RCN when it's available. After all, they are putting in their own physical facilities to provide their phone/data/cable services...which is really the only way to compete against the baby bells/cable franchises.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
Your problem isn't that you are too far from the CO, its that your line is provisioned in an incompatible manner, or was in the past. For instance, if you have a MUX (two lines on one pair) DSL won't work. If there ever was such a beast on your line, the phone company probably thinks its still there, because (regardless of your ILEC) they are notorious for their incompetence.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
Last mile wire may be owned by Bell Canada, but other ISPs can use it.
End result is I do not have to deal with sympatico to get my DSL.
This is very slightly off topic, but remember how the FCC required Time Warner to open it's cable internet lines to allow ISPs other than RoadRunner?
Well, I seem to recall that the FCC gave Time Warner 1 year. Also, IIRC, that was well over a year ago, and I still have no choice of ISP on my cable line. WTF happened here?
How do you think the Bells got all that wiring? They were granted a monopoly, which made it possible to pay for all of it. How come nobody else gets such help from the government? The Bells wouldn't have that wiring if it weren't for the government. The government didn't want everyone and their brother laying wire all over the city. So they only allowed one company to do it. Now they turn those companies loose with no competition. Nobody else is going to be able to build that kind of infrastructure again because nobody else is going be be handed a monopoly by the government. The only sane solution is for the city to own the infrastructure and allow all of the various service providers to have equal access to it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Telecom History 101:
Originally, there were dozens of local carriers (back when local telephone service began). While prices were cheap, the phones were all based on different standards AND you couldn't necessarily be on one carrier and talk to someone else on another carrier. The government realized that two things had to take place.
#1. All the phones in the country had to be able to talk to each other (i.e. same electrial standard).
#2. All of the switches across the country had to be connected together (i.e. long distance).
Bell had the most lines and the patent on the telephone, so it was common sense to give him a regulated monopoly for wires in the ground and to install phone service everywhere.
B
Flamebait
Serious inquiries only.
I can let whomever I want do whatever I want on my private property. Another fubar in all this is that many utilities have "exclusive" right-of-way leases on poles and underground conduit from the municipalities. If a competitor can't get through the right-of-way to my property, that'll be a problem.
Buy a poster.
"Have you read Adam Smith's title called The Wealth of Nations? It rests on a principle of a competitive or free market economy; a competitive market being defined by many economists as one where no single supplier holds more than 20% of the marketspace, having 7 or more distinct direct competitors. Only under these circumstances will capitalistic markets bring the highest value to society. In marginalized situations, where a single company holds a large share of the marketplace there isn't a choice, it is called monopolistic."
I challenge you to find for me the chapter in The Wealth of Nations that describes any of this garbage about monopolies. It sounds like you are confusing Alan Keynes with Adam Smith. I would suggest the spirt of Book IV, Chapter III, Part II would contradict your claim. In it, the case is made that any sort of restrictions on trade do not help anyone. I would argue this chapter can be applied to restrictions on telecommunications companies as well. Adam Smith was also well aware of basic greek. The word MONOPOLY comes from the two words mon and polein. MONOPOLY literally means SINGLE SELLER. Because you arbitrarily decide the greeks really mean 20% of the market or less than 7 competitors is absolutely irrelevant. We can change the definitions of every word here. But, fortunately I have history on my side.
Perhaps you should read Smith instead of quoting him to give credence to your bogus claims. Or better yet, stop getting your info from the New Republic.
Monopolies exist for one reason and one reason alone, because the government forces others to accept them. We are talking about WIRES here, not roads. There is no reason why 10 companies can't contract with individual citizens to lay wire on their property. You may laugh at such a prospect, but it is not as difficult as you might think. Personally, I don't even believe the roads should be owned by the government, but that is another issue.
Lets say in 1970 you decided you were going to set up a compete with AT&T. Nevermind how expensive this prospect might seem, you could not have done so. The police would have come, with guns pointed at your heads, and drag you off to jail
True monopolies are not arbitrary numbers of market control, a monopoly is ONLY POSSIBLE under threat of violent force. A monopoly is absolutely impossible in a free society. Capitalism is not about bogus statistics and ridiculous definitions such as yours regarding monopolies, Captitalism is about freedom. You are free to do whatever you wish, unless someone makes it too costly for you to do so. Usually, this involves weapons.
This IS a black and white issue. Freedom, or not freedom. You may try and obfuscate this issue by presenting irrelevant facts or changing the definition of ancient words in the argument... but the fact remains we can either have a company owned by citizens provide high speed internet access. OR we can have the government do it.
A simple proof of why government sucks, is Europe and Japan. These are two economies that believed everything you have just said, and their are absolute basket cases. You are proposing nothing less than the Command Economy theories presented by the American Left in the 1970s.
Government does not work, it never has worked, and it never will work. Get over it. You may think your parody of marxist economic theory you learned in college is sufficient, but it is old news. We have listend to the chatter of micromanaging arm chair thinkers like this for a hundred years.
I also had to say that I found your discussion of dictatorship versus democracy amusing. Personally, I do not believe in the rule of men. I believe in the rule of law. The government exists to protect citizens from force and fraud, nothing more nothing less. Whether despotism or democracy does this is unclear as it has not been tried too often in the last 2000 years.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Wake me up when Ford is the only company that is allowed to provide cars in my area.
Heh:
Your Honor, he ain't Chevy, he's my br...uhhh...Oldsmobile?
and am I the only one who thinks KIA is a bad name for a car? (think the acronym K.I.A).
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I like to think AK is similar to the cloud city, we're small enough that the empire doesn't notice us. Because of this we have no "baby bells" or the like. Just good cheap cable modems/dsl service from local telcos. Another plus is most of the population up here is computer illiterate so we don't have problems with cable modem congestion ;)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
Bell had the most lines and the patent on the telephone, so it was common sense to give him a regulated monopoly for wires in the ground and to install phone service everywhere.
Giving them a monopoly isn't the problem. It was the right thing to do at the time. The problem is that due to that monopoly they have become very well entrenched and competition doesn't stand a chance without access to the infrastructure. The government created the monster, they need to control it. This ruling just shows that that isn't happening.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
One important aspect that you neglect to mention is that telco wires and their supporting infrastructure occupy public and private property. In exchange for the use of this property, the property owners must be given some consideration. It seems reasonable that property owners should have some influence over where wires are strung or burried and how those wires are used.
That said, I'm all for mandatory at-cost leasing of wires that occupy public land or private property not owned by the telco. In absence of such measure, another method for preserving fairness might be requiring telco's to pay rent to the property owner.
You'd be more convincing if you at least knew the names of the economists you're talking about.
It'd also help if you weren't wildly out of step even with conservative economists.
I'm more concerned about a cable monopoly than a telco monopoly. My only choice for better-than-dial-up is cable. I'm not too impressed with the service I've recieved from AT&T Broadband, and it keeps getting more expensive. Couple of points: 1) I'd love to see Verizon given an incentive to expand DSL into my neighborhood. Having numerous competitor's is ideal, but I don't think it's realistic. At least, let's pit the cable companies against the Bells where possible. 2) Why doesn't the cable company have to share its facilities with competitors?? I think a Covad-like company should be able to give me service over AT&T's facilities. Last I looked, there's more cable modems in service than DSLs. The cable companies claim there are technical issues. Yeah, right.
Please, please tell me. Of which economist(s) am I so ignorant? This discussion revolves around a single economist, Adam Smith and my personal musings.
It should be obvious that my economic musings are not at all conservative. They are based on an absolute distrust of government, a respect for the power and threat of violent force, and a desire to not have other people tell me what to do when I am not hurting anyone nor lying to them. It is as simple as that.
Further, one need to follow anyone about anything. Who cares what Adam Smith said or Karl Marx for that matter. The simple fact is 99.9% of the people on slashdot probably have not read the 1100 page Wealth of Nations or the 10000 Das Capital. We also cannot debate such mammoth works here. But, contrary to the powers that be, economics is not rocket science. We need not quote other economists or disect their arguments in order to figure out the basic problem here:
For Americans to get high speed internet access in their homes RIGHT NOW, should we use the government to regulate the industry or not? Is the recent appeals decision regarding the 1999 FCC regulations of the telecommunications industry beneficial to the American people or not?
You find my an economist who deals with this issue explicitly. They do exist, but I won't help you find them.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
However also keep in mind that the fact that there are 4 other parties to choose from there is a great deal of vote splitting that goes on between parties with similar platforms (i.e. Canadian Alliance and Conservatives). The only reason the liberals continuously get in is the right is divided and the left (all relative to the current political situation) is left entirely to the Liberals because the NDP is a very poorly run party with a worse provincial record (can anyone say BC). It's likely the fact that the Conservatives imploded after Mulroney that an extremist (depending on your view) party like the Bloc was able to form by picking up old Conservative votes in Quebec (this is pure speculation on my part). While the multi-party system does give us more choice it also effectivly limits that choice by placing the majority of the power in the hands of strong regional parties (Liberals, the Alliance, the Bloc) and punishing the parties with a more widespread base of support (NDP, PCs) and when it comes down to the choice of Prime Minister it really mimics the US in the fact that the decision is pretty much eft up to Ontario and Quebec and even then Quebec essentiall works outside by voting for the Bloc. Other than coalitions what other party has even formed the government than the Liberals or PCs? The only time it really is an issue is we get a slightly more multi dimensional debate and the other parties sometimes formed the opposition and got a chance to pressure the government. The fact is that unless the Canadian Alliance merges with the conservatives or implodes we will never get a different government (at least for a few decades), the other Parties are marginal, the PCs lose too many votes with them and the east will never accept a government that it percieves has western roots.
I stole this Sig
It's not the wires that's expensive, it's the ducts and poles and central stations (switches) and repeaters locations/buildings...
:)
This is not just nitpick, since cable companies uses the same ducts and poles and switch locations etc... (the parlance is OSP : Outside Plant). But the Bells own the ducts and poles too, for the most part (though I think the cable companies have dug their own OSPs : someone correct me if I am wrong since IANAA).
And, that is where the Bells can squeeze you too : force you to pull out all your cables from the ducts they own.
Offtopic : Ever wondered how posts with "I will be modded down" always gets modded up? Moderators are so easily swayed. Now having said that, I will definitely be modded down...
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Please, please tell me. Of which economist(s) am I so ignorant? This discussion revolves around a single economist, Adam Smith and my personal musings.
I think the previous poster meant John Maynard Keynes. You referred to an "Alan Keynes", who appears from a Google search to be a Republican politician, but not a famous economist.
"You find my an economist who deals with this issue explicitly."
a tion/
Start here: http://www.cato.org/
then wander here: http://www.mises.org/
and be sure to visit here: http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/regul
[yes, those are right out of my bookmarks]
Your post reminds me of Orwell's line, "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
Monopolies exist for one reason and one reason alone, because the government forces others to accept them. ... True monopolies are not arbitrary numbers of market control, a monopoly is ONLY POSSIBLE under threat of violent force. A monopoly is absolutely impossible in a free society.
This utter and complete nonsense means that it's time for a basic economics lesson.
There are generally considered to be three major types of monopolies: natural monopolies, local monopolies, and regulated monopolies.
The first type of monopoly, the natural monopoly, is the result of economies of scale. When an industry is a decreasing cost industry, increases in production lowers the LRATC (Long-Run Average Total Cost). This is what is referred to as economies of scale. The more infrastructure you build to support production, the cheaper the cost of production becomes. If the bottom of the company's LRATC curve intersects the market demand curve or is beyond it, then when the company has scaled up to cut costs as low as they can go, it has become a natural monopoly. Firms entering the market will have a much higher ATC until they can meet the same level of production as the monopoly maker. However, without the ability to lose money for long periods of time, the new entrant will never be able to reach the same level of production as the the monopoly because its costs are far above what the monopoly can charge for the product. In this case, the barrier to entry is the economies of scale.
The second type of monopoly is the kind that the phone companies are usually considered to fall under, the local monopoly. These monopolies form when only one company services an area. Utility companies are some of the most common types of local monopolies due to the expense of setting up alternative infrastructure for competitors. Without forced access to the private infrastructure of the local monopoly, the overhead costs of setting up business are usually too great to recoup at rates competitive to the local monopoly. Other local monopolies include stadium parking (only so much nearby space) and the concessions stand at a movie theater (can't bring your own food with you). In this case the barrier to entry is control of an essential resource.
Finally, you have regulated monopoly. For one reason or another the government has decided to grant monopoly control over a market to a company. Examples of this include patent holders, copyright owners, and certain kinds of government contrators. The barrier to entry is government dictated here.
Utility companies fall under all three categories. Economies of scale give the local utility the severe advantage unless the government forces them to share their production infrastructure in some fashion. They are characterized by controlling a geographically-tied market, and they are subject to many kinds of government regulation to avoid the price-gouging and customer abuse that comes with a captive market.
Violent force is completely unnecessary and happens extremely rarely in the real world. A company that is up against a natural monopoly is driven out of business by the higher cost of production. In addition, should the competitor manage to draw close to the monopoly's price, most monopolies set their production along the demand curve so that they maximize profit (when MR = MC, something that you can look up on your own). This is not nearly as low as they can go. Quite simply, market forces will drive the competition out of business. Regulated monopolies are kept out of business by the fact that entering the market may be illegal. Usually the courts are enough to stop production without need for police action. Local monopolies straddle the line. However, it's the possession of a critical resource that keeps them in control. All sorts of legal means, such as property rights and the expense of finding/creating an alternative resource are enough to keep them out.
I'd recommend taking a basic economics class before pretending to know something about monopolies. Failing that, there are several good resources online that you can find via Google. Unfortunately, all the good ones with diagrams are not in HTML format, so I couldn't post a link to a diagram of the demand curve set against the LRATC curve for you.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm midway through Atlas Shrugged right now. My gut reaction is that fiber optic cable = rail. The squeeling for open competition could come straight from the looters' mouths. Can someone tell me how the Baby Bells profiting from their own cable is wrong? Public interest be damned; they laid it, they can do what they want with it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
.. because you are obviously very young and VERY naive.
As others posted, the Baby Bells were GRANTED monopolies. The huge opportunity is already there.. allow others to give you broadband over land lines. DSL/Cable is expensive because each carrier has a defacto GOVERNMENT enforced monopoly.
much the same way DSL is still going to have to compete with cable modems
A duopoly can still be anti-competitive. If you don't like the DSL monopoly's service, and you don't like the cable monopoly's service, and you don't have $1,000 per month for a T1, what is your other option?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yes the phone companies own the wires. HOWEVER.
Using precisely the arguments which won this case the regional Bells can now put every other dial up ISP out of business. You will use your local Bell for your dial up or you can kiss your internet connection good bye. Since AOL etc. are dial up ISP's they're gone too. We'll shortly be back to the days of "We're the phone company - we don't care, we don't have to."
The free market breaks down when you are dealing with a monopoly because - by definition - there is no competition to keep them in line.
This is blindingly obvious - but somehow that point seems to elude most people's mental grasp.
No structure created by mankind reaches to infinity, and that includes the idea of a free market. There are boundary conditions under which the free market breaks down and becomes destructive; it is important to understand what those failure conditions are.
... film at eleven!
Yeah, I agree. And, maybe they wouldn't be in such bad shape if they didn't try to grub every penny and give good customer service.
My Baby Bell pays big fines every year to the state public service commision for their terrible 'customer service'. I wonder if the fines are actually more costly than it would be to beef up the service, though.
My #1 reason for going with Cable Modem vs. DSL was the poor customer service that my local Baby Bell is so well known for, especially with DSL connections. I have to say that I was quite pleased with the Cable Cos. customer service, so far. So, poor customer service loses another customer.
When I first read the headline, I read it as "Baby Bells Viscious Over Sharing Rules" and thought, "Isn't that the truth!"
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
The bottom line in all this is that Americans (the Consumer) will pay more for: high speed internet (self-explanatory to this crowd), steel (y'know, computer cases/parts, things like that), softwood lumber (new homes/renovations - your new sundeck, etc.), farm produce (hey, the Farmers are getting paid even if they grow nothing...), etc., ...and that's after the Republicans first year in office. Who knows how many more votes will have to be bought before the elections in November and how many more favors will have will have to be paid off in the next three years. Or seven years, if they "maybe" win another term...
You probably don't need to be some sort of insider to tell that the bigger and more powerful corporations are the ones who are behind The Republican Party (of which Bush is only a mere figurehead...it's not like he's the mastermind behind the policies being implemented or anything). Microsoft gets a slap on the wrist from the new administration's DOJ - consumers suffer. Enron falls apart just after the Republican's win (and their largest financial contributor...hmmmm)- consumers suffer...
Figure out who the absolute biggest corporations are in America, and bet that it'll somehow cost you more for their goods/services in the next three years and their practices will be cloaked in invincibilty.
Anyway, WTF does it take to get decent, non-nosy, affordable broadband? I don't want to leech or serve. I just want to telecommute, serve a web site, and game in peace.
Now off to Memorial Day celebrations where we remember the billions of bots and soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in LAN parties throughout the world. This is best done by sacrificing more bots with a LAN party of your own.
Won't somebody stop this cycle of violence?
this is a potentially troubling development, hopefully something will be done if prices skyrocket, of course windows prices did and nothing happened except a wrist slap
GNU