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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
That technically the Bells own the wiring.
Technically this is true, but it's not that simple. Bell telephone was granted a monopoly by the government. They were given exclusive rights to porvide telephone service to people. In exchange for that monopoly, they had to accept government oversight of how that monopoly is used. When you went to have telephone service hooked up at your house you didn't have a choice who's wiring used. The government granted exclusive rights to one company to run that wiring to your house. This servers a purpose in that you don't want dozens of companies putting up telephone poles and runnign wires everywhere.
The Bells do own the wiring, but how they can use that wiring is regulated by the FCC. The government can't just take the wiring away from them, but it can tell them they have to share. If they refuse to share, I would assume that the govenment could fine them or even force them to sell the wiring.
As other options become available such as wireless or options over cable TV networks, the monopoly of the telephone company becomes less important. Because of this it may be reasonable to give the Bells more leeway so that they can compete with other technologies. The problem is that from what I've seen, some of them make Microsoft seem like a team player.
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.
The U.S. hasn't led the way in broadband for a while - Japan has.
In my area alone (Tokorozawa, which is no megapolis), there exists a ridiculous amount of ADSL providers for me to choose from (ISPs - GOL, BigLobe, SoNet, OCN, YahooBB, etc. "loop" providers" - Eaccess, NTT, ACCA, DION, etc.). Of course, NTT owns the copper to my house, but they get their cut. NTT charges an "access fee" (about 180 yen a month) for the use of the "last mile" copper for something other than telephone service. In total, I pay a little under $40 a month for 8Mb ADSL (<=8Mb down, <=1Mb up).
Then there is cable TV access... oh yeah... and a huge initiative that's coming to my area soon... FTTH - Fiber To The Home. 100Mbs of broadband lovin (too bad about them bottlenecks).
Broadband internet access has become like telephone or cable TV service... it's just something you have. I don't know anyone here, none of my friends, none of my co-workers*, that doesn't have some form of broadband.
From what I read here and from talking with friends in the States, quality broadband is hard to find. It's definitely more expensive. It's sad that I live in arguably the most expensive country in the world, yet I pay less for my broadband than anyone I know in America (does 8Mb ADSL even exist there?).
* Some of my friends live in Yokota AB. That place is NOT Japan. It's little America. The sole ISP there is fully taking advantage of it's monopoly. If you live on the base, you pay $35 a month for 56k dial-up that's limited to 90 hrs a month or you go without, which in today's world, isn't an option when you're thousands of miles away from home. Poor bastards!
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
That technically the Bells own the wiring.
There are two strong mitigating factors. First, they were granted the special privilege of being a monopoly, and two, they were granted the special privilege of mandated right of way.
If they wish to be freed of the special conditions that went with those two valuable grants, they should be freed of the grants as well.
Imagine if they had to pay property owners if they needed to dig up the yard for repairs! For that matter, if they were forced to pay yearly rent for the right to bury wires on people's private property!
Yes, they would go bankrupt overnight, and yes, that would be bad for everyone.
So perhaps a compromise is in order? They get to leave their lines buried on my property and I won't shoot them as trespassers if they have to do some digging for repairs, BUT I get to use a portion of them (one pair to be specific) to connect to someone elses DSLAM if I want to. Just to sweeten the deal, I will pay them a reasonable monthly fee to be my telephone provider.
Otherwise, they should come and get their wires out of my yard before I declare them to be abandoned and remove them myself.
In other words, the people have cut them slack (through the government) since day 1, they could at least do the same in return.