Slashdot Mirror
FCC Abandons Linesharing, Kills DSL Competition
raygundan writes "According to Reuters, the FCC today decided to greatly curtail the laws that force incumbent phone companies to share their lines with their competition at cost. This does not bode well for companies like Covad Communications who provide DSL using phone lines to bridge their data networks over the "last mile" to customers. The new rules do force line sharing as long as companies are willing to offer voice service, but this essentially states that if you are not already a phone company, you cannot offer DSL. The existing rules will be phased out over three years. There is still some hope, however, that a federal court might strike down the FCC ruling. Oddly, the news agencies seem to be reporting this as a minor change to the rules, rather than an end to all non-ILEC competition in DSL." The FCC's front page has links (luckily PDFs as well as Microsoft Word files) about the decision, including statements from each of the commissioners.
ok, so what did line-sharing do for me anyway? I am in, what I consider to be, a large suburb of Minneapolis. We have about 60k people. I was unable to get QWest DSL b/c I am over 8 miles from the CO (don't ask me how).
My two other options were (ATTBI which is now over $60 w/o CATV, or IDSL through IIRC Covad for $90).
So what did it do for me? Nothing. I am still stuck with a service I am not entirely pleased with (the speeds are fine, it's the price increases and the conversion to Comcast that I am not happy about).
If I understand correctly, all Covad (or whoever) would have to do is offer voice and it wouldn't be a problem. Surely they could slap together some kind of VoIP thing and offer it to their DSL customers, then BellSouth would still have to share.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
This ruling is extra notable because Powell, the FCC Chairman, publicly disagrees with their decision: "An FCC chairman has not dissented from a high-profile FCC ruling for roughly 15 years." Powell was a very strong proponent for deregulation, and it seems this time around, state regulators and Bell want the status quo.
The phone companies have been pushing for this for a while - it means they don't have to share and can basically charge what they want. I've heard rumors that some phone companies have been holding subscribers "hostage" to try to force the FCC to change the laws - they're refusing to upgrade their networks until they can be assured that they'll be the only ones to profit.
It's time for the phone company monopoly to end - it's obviously not working for the interest of the consumer.
Where I live, I am 150 yrds from a box containing DSL equipment. I have thus far been unable to use it because SBC refuses to power it up as long as they are forced to resell service to other companies. Maybe now, they will turn it on and allow me to get decent broadband service. While it is bad for competitors, I *the consumer* will probably be able to get DSL now.
Perhaps because the Bell's infrastructure was paid for by the public, not by the Bells?
Black and grey are both shades of white.
When I was a small business systems consultant I frequently encountered a problem with SMTP. The DSL lines for a certain baby bell would not pass outgoing email if the "from:" field did not contain the approved domain. I likened it to the post office refusing to deliver mail that was placed in a box with a return address not on the block where the box resides.
If these companies can lock down these networks, then average users (those not interested/willing to manipulate email fields) are going to be "forced" to use the email domain of the provider as a return address. This provides these baby bell ISP's with a MSoft-ish method for bullying users into using their products (as opposed to just competing on the basis of quality).
This is anti-competitive, un-American and anti-capitalist.
The best way to do is to be.
From a linked Yahoo article: "Essentially, the majority of the FCC opposed the deregulation plan set forth by agency chairman Michael Powell."
Excuse my ignorance (I'm Canadian), but if the majority of the FCC is opposing it, how did the plan get decided upon?
The government should Nationalize the lines that run from the central office to homes, and rent those lines out to anyone for cost of maintenance.
Too bad most consumers are so scared of socialism, even though it has a place in situations like this. Ironic, that socialism could give us a truely free market.
The lines run through public property. They cross millions of private property boundries. They should be a public resource.
Then the Phone Companies could compete on products and service. And the Baby Bells would probably all go under in less than a year after exposing their actual incompetance in a suddenly open market.
According to Reuters, the FCC today decided to greatly curtail the laws that force incumbent phone companies to share their lines with their competition at cost.
ILECs have not been forced to share their lines at cost. That is a myth invented by the baby Bells to convince lawmakers that linesharing makes them lose money. Actually what the 1996 Telecom Act says is that they have to rent their lines to outside customers and they must charge everybody the same rate, including internal customers.
A popular stunt among the ILECs is to rent lines to their own internet divisions at way below cost, thus making their internet business seem more profitable than it is. The 1996 Telecom Act just evens the playing field in that respect and prevents the Bells from using their local loop monopoly to prop up other corporate divisions.
The new rules do force line sharing as long as companies are willing to offer voice service, but this essentially states that if you are not already a phone company, you cannot offer DSL.
This is actually not as bad as it sounds when you consider that FCC Chairman Michael Powell *spit* wanted to completely sweep away ALL the regulations that require the ILECs to share lines. His proposal was defeated with respect to local phone service because Republican commissioner Kevin J. Martin jumped the fence and sided with the Democrats. So while this may suck for Covad, Speakeasy, etc., at least it won't totally eliminate DSL competition for now.
Probably both sides are going to be unhappy about this. Expect this battle to go to the courts next.
This article has more good info.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
I gave up DSL and got a T-1 a little over a year ago. $400/month and I share it (and the cost) with my neighbors (802.11b). All the IP's I want (within reason) and it has never once gone down. Money well spent.
And now, there is STILL no incentive for them to upgrade their networks, since they roughly match the performance of cable modems. What they gain is freedom from direct competition. The only thing holding their prices down at all now is the cable companies. And the cable companies already creep their price up every few months.
Is it "socialist" to ask for fair access and competition on lines my tax dollars helped pay for? The ONLY portion of the network Covad uses is the high-frequency part of the local loop. They have their own data backbones and switches. All they want is a way to connect that to your house, on a part of the phone line (which you already pay the phone company for) that they are not using unless you already have DSL. And they have to pay the same amount the phone companies charge their own DSL divisions for each line.
Maybe it's retaliation against the growth of VoIP, and the fact that regulation of it is still pending (if not shot down already).
Hey, that's an idea! Demonstrate VoIP for the dingbats at the FCC, to reinforce the idea that any ISP (owner of the lines or not) can do voice service!
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
The real big problem with broadband is that you can't know whether you are allowed to have it until you try to get it. This has kept me from moving! I would rather stay in my apartment where I have 1.2 megabit dsl, static routing, etc., (costs $109/mo from the ISP + $65/mo from Qwest!), than to try to move without knowing in advance whether I can get the same service. The telco would expect me to move first, close a real estate deal, get a phone line and THEN find out whether or not DSL is available.
If I were to try to move, I would have to do two things. 1. Stay at the current address until the deal is setup at the new one, phone line is installed, DSL is working, THEN cancel the old service and move. This will increase the cost of moving substantially. 2. Ensure that the real estate agent or landlord understands that it's a deal-breaker (escrow money is refunded, deposits returned) if it turns out DSL is not available, and that it might be a month after closing before this is discovered. I'd need that explicitly written into the contract, and absolutely clearly understood by everyone involved.
If I'm looking at a piece of real estate, I want to know what utilities are available, as the very first items to evaluate. I want to know if it has running water, electrical service, natural gas, if there's garbage collection, telephone service, cable tv, and, DSL. Since my career depends on the internet access, it's actually on the same list as running water and electricity. And I can actually work around the lack of water and electricity, but if there's no DSL I'm stuck.
So, why can't I find out BEFORE getting involved with a piece of real estate, whether it has this service available? Also, what kind of approach can I take to force the issue? I don't want to sign a contract or a lease without knowing in advance whether I can get DSL, what signal rate it will support, and what providers will offer the service.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Since now the DSL vendors have to string something for the last mile, how about fiber? They can use the extra bandwidth to outsell the monopoly telcos by providing higher bandwidth Internet service, digital phone service and video on demand. Since they don't have to worry about carrying the overhead for the obsolete stuff, the cost of doing this can be quite reasonable. Using VOIP for the phone service they could offer services that the POTS telcos could not! Use the video on demand to sell the Internet portion. Since there is plenty of bandwidth, provide a complete package to tie in multiple computers, multiple TVs, multiple phones and wireless. Since they are no longer telcos (as defined by the FCC rules) they don't have to worry about the regulations.
If the DSL providers compete on a different level they can win this. This decision was a result of the FCC being bought by the telcos. Plain and simple.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Bah, you all just need dedicated unbundled loops and SDSL connections. Line-Shared ADSL? Blah I say. Not to mention this does not effect ILEC provided Line-Shared services (Like Qwest DSL). The ILECs are required to provided these services, and the times coming when they better have it, or pay the price, thanks to that fiasco of a '96 telco act. What does this do? It forces CLEC's to get their acts together. Very few CLEC's that exist do what they were originally intended to do, compete against the incumbents! Compete with, not have the incumbents subsidise their existance... God I love my 1.1mbit SDSL connection, I love my 30-40 ms away from such sites as yahoo and google, my 99.99%+ uptimes. I think my ISP did it right, they are fairly small fish in the world, but they are a PSC regulated, Tier 2, CLEC, that creates it's own private infrastructures (FTTH, FTTB, CTTH) or uses dedicated unbundled loops from the ILEC, are triple-redundant, ds3 and oc3 connections, and all of this where? Montana of all places. Rural broadband? How about a dark fiber loop to your home?