Slashdot Mirror
FCC's Triennial Review Released
rednaxela writes "The FCC, after six months of deliberation, released the Triennial Review order on the evening of August 21. The Order makes substantial changes to the rules governing the obligations of the regional bell operating companies (i.e., SBC, BellSouth, Verizon and Qwest) to lease their networks to the competitive local exchange carriers (e.g., MCI, AT&T) for the provision of local phone service and, perhaps more interestingly to this audience, broadband. Brief summary here, link to the order and the FCC Commissioners' statements at www.fcc.gov."
If I recall correctly, the local carrier for the Northwest United States, Qwest, has been opening their lines to competitors willing to provide DSL service. Qwest then would sign them up as re-sellers of the service, and after that the "Screw Your Friends(r)" program would take place.
First, Qwest would charge the competitive ISP a sign-up charge for each customer, so basically when signing up for DSL service, you would have the option of (a) monthly payment + sign up fee from an ISP or (b) the same monthly payment and no sign up fee from Qwest.
Second, the phone lines are opened to competitors, but they are still owned by the phone company. Meaning that whenever your DSL goes down, if you've signed up with an independent ISP, your support would be pretty much useless. "Ehh, yeah, it shows the service as down, but it's Qwest problem, we can't do anything with it, it's not our server". Meaning the only time the tech support would be really helpful is when their server goes down and they are actually in control. Hardly an incentive.
Perhaps a better solution is building dark fiber on government money and then having counties charge any phone company lease access fees. But government historically has been inefficient on managing any kind of infrastructure, just look at its state in the former Soviet Union countries.
Im not happy about the closing off of competition, but in the case of infrastructure services does it make sense ? Telco services are something that need to be there everyday rain or shine and the companies that provide them need to be healthy enough to provide that certainty.
In my local market several discount providers have gone bankrupt. This has resulted in large scale disruption of the businesses that relied on their services.
You have to ask is it worth it to risk a vital service just to provide an opportunity for undercapitalized, newcomers. Look at worldcom, quest etc etc. At least when I pick up my phone I get a dial tone.
This, folks, is called Capitalism. The government is corrupt and controlled by the big corporations.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the government being corrupt. Communist and socialist countries have corrupt governments too...
You have made a logical fallacy of causality.
----
In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
Woohoo, hahaa, heehehehe
Robert Quinn, AT&T's [T] vice president of regulatory affairs, said the FCC's released order "ensures competitors access to essential network elements as long as impairments to competition continue and thus guarantees consumers a choice of local service providers
Whaha - who else does he write comedy for? Hehehe.
Verizon completely gates MY access to DSL, and has said "NO", even thoough I'm less than 2 miles from a big urban co.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Is it just me, or does "Triennial Review Order" sound like some sort of secret society?
This, folks, is called Capitalism
Actually this is more socialism/communism because the government is controlling what the companies can/can't do with the infrastructure that they [the companies] own
Congress will smile in your face while sticking it to you. What makes you think that if someone was willing to coyly place a couple of hundred thousand in the pocket of some congress*person*, that congress*person* (male/female) is not going to either take it, or seriously contemplate taking it. This is not to say that every last one of those in congress are schemers, but you have to understand, there is no guarantee that anyone will be in office the next term, so many times this feeds into the minds of those who take it.
Besides what do you think is really going to happen to them? Jail... Rarely. Look at the case of Torricelli Jersey, walked away scott-free, iisshhtt happens whether people like it or not, and making it illegal will only make *contributors* find other methods of getting people money. Offshore accounts, business trips, et. al. Congress*people* are human (I think) and as animals, humans do what they can to survive. Some methods might be more shallow than others.
MoFscker
followed by this:
So at least some of the commissioners there know and realize just what this new ruling has the potential to do, and who it will hurt. Too bad they appear to have been overruled in the process, either that or they were somehow 'encouraged' to go along with the ruling.
Too bad most of the general populace has absolutely no interest in and no concern with things like this. Even worse, it seems more and more evident every day that most people seem to not be able to think for themselves.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Where I live there's a DSLAM 8 miles away and the fucking phone company - and the local ISPs - STILL don't offer DSL because no one will spend the money to spec the ancient crappy lines for service. I doubt being able to charge a bit more for a hundred potential customers is going to help that any. But the more wireless is used and developed, the faster it evolves. And wireless IS a potentially viable option out here - but it ain't there yet.
Yeah, it sucks for people who live in the city and have to pay another ten bucks a month for DSL. Whoopdeefucking doo, at least you have service and the money to pay for it. When I lived in LA I still payed $80 a month to pacbell for shit service, which is likely more than most of you pay now. We don't need cheap DSL, because much of the country won't ever get it at ANY price - we need NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. It takes money to develop that infrastructure, and this decision will help provide it.
Google on the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Look into how South Korea managed to get broadband into the majority of its homes and businesses. How about the examples of municipal power companies opening up their fiber optic networks to consumers? Or the Federal Interstate network?
Just because the government runs it doesn't mean it's bad, just because it's privatized doesn't mean it's good.
Personally, I think the idea of using public money to build dark fiber infrastructure and leasing it to private companies is a good one.
One thing it is reasonable for government to spend our money on is something that'll improve the economy for everybody, even for people who don't directly use the service in question.
Tech Public Policy stuff
...and Communism makes EVERYBODY corrupt. Ask any former resident of a former communist country.
The key is to deligate only enough power for the government to make sure everybody is playing by the rules.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Capitalism has nothing to do with the government being corrupt
Of course it has to do with Capitalism. Capitalism relies on Government regulation to ensure companies play fair (for example, anti-trust regulations). It's an oppositional system, just like the legal system; the corporations have the dollar, the people have the government.
The problem is that capitalism seems to overlook the fact that the people who compose the government want to make money just as much as anyone else. How this works out in practice is that the dollar trumps the government. If you want to make capitalism work, you've got to find some way of constructing a government to whome money doesn't matter.
Communist and socialist countries have corrupt governments too So what? The grandparent said that capitalism makes corrupt government (capitalism implies corruption). He didn't say corruption implies capitalism, which is what you are arguing against.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
This means that, with a decrease in competition, we'll see a nice big hike in the cost of DSL... Welcome to America, where the government bows to the will of the big companies...
Unless I misread the FCC order, it isn't what it's portrayed to be.
Before the order, the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers - i.e. The Old Monopoly Phone Company, mostly baby-bells) were required to sell their whole infrastructure to their competition (the CLECs), at a price less than it cost them to build more. Not just copper pair and fiber, but timeslots, switching equipment, DSLAM channels, DS1(T1 bandwidth and format - in copper, fiber, or microwave), DS3 (T3 bandwidth and format, ditto), and STS-n (SONET bandwidth and format), repeaters, SONET nodes, and so on.
Of course this meant that if the ILECs expanded the infrastructure to meet the load, they lost money. So they dragged their feet as much as possible, until virtually all the CLECs went under. And STILL they dragged their feet, because if they ever actually started builiding out there'd be a new crop of CLECs to compete with them using their own investment. And the equipment manufacturers started going belly-up, the bulk of the fiber remained dark, and the broadband market remained inadequately served.
The rule change was not to ELIMINATE this, but to cut it back to only the outside plant. They have to rent the CLECs copper pair to your house (on which the CLEC can hang their OWN DSLAM and maybe a phone switch), but they don't have to rent the slots on their own DSLAMs and switches, or connect the CLEC's DSLAM to the ILEC's POTS line (renting the DSL part of their local phone service and requiring a truck roll every time a new subscriber buys DSL from an ILEC). They have to rent the dark fiber, but not the repeaters, network node line cards, and timeslots in their bright fibers. They have to provide access to the drops, phone closets, junction boxes, apartment house/business building internal wiring, etc. where they own them.
And this is mitigated somewhat: Existing connections are grandfathered, so they can't just cut 'em off. Where they wired a neighborhood with a fiber-to-remote-concentrator / copper-to-the-house hybrit, instead of copper from house to central office, they still have to rent that out and provide access to DSL channels in the concentrator. They have to provide DS1s and up to two DS3 loops to businesses - though nothing more than signal hauling. And state communication commissions can require more on a case-by-case basis.
The result is that:
The ILECs still have to provide wire and switching for POTS service to their competitors.
The ILECs still have to provide raw copper and fiber to their competitors - for broadband or POTS.
The ILECs do NOT have to provide the electronics to DRIVE the copper and fiber (unless they've taken a shortcut that makes the copper or fiber unavailable unbundled).
The ILECs do NOT have to sell just the DSL portion of one of THEIR POTS lines. (CLECs must rent the whole line unless they cut an individual deal.)
So the monopoly-subsidized installed base of copper and fiber is made available to all on a level basis. But the new equipment to put broadband on it must be installed separately by each carrier.
So (IF the regulated prices on the copper and fiber are set correctly) the ILECs, CLECs, cable internet companies, wireless internet companies are now competing on an equal footing.
The ILECs no longer have an incentive to drag their feet on broadband instalation for fear of subsidizing their competition, and can build out, competing with cable and wireless on a more equal footing and letting the technology drive the costs
If the CLECs revive or new ones
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Consider this:
The first change concerns the role of state regulators will have in deciding which elements of incumbent telcos' networks will be available to competitors on an unbundled basis at regulated wholesale rates. Originally, switching equipment wasn't going to be part of the menu of unbundled network elements (UNEs). However, yesterday's released order gives state officials authority to decide whether switching equipment should remain on the list of UNEs.
Reading this, I conclude that Baby Bell local exchange switches may become available for leasing by competitors based on the whim of state regulators. This is an improvement for competitors, who before had no access to these switches, because they weren't "part of the menu". The last sentence throws a wrench in my interpretation by using the word "remain", which indicates that these local exchange switches are already available for leasing. Which is it?
The second change involves the broadband market. In February, the FCC freed the ILECs from a requirement that they lease at regulated discounted rates the portion of their networks that competitors use to provide Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (i.e., broadband) service. The released version of the FCC's order retains a provision that allows competitors to lease complete ILEC lines for the provision of voice and DSL service, or to partner with other carriers that are the lines.
My read of this is; back in February the FCC allowed the Baby Bells to stop leasing the equipment needed by competitors to provide DSL. Now, however, the FCC says the Baby Bells must allow competitors to lease these lines. That looks like a good thing. Is my interpretation correct?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Can Bell South justify the cost to rework for the network load increase made by MCI and others to customers. This is not flame bait it is a realistic question. My take is that this forced access is not good. How can you force telcos to increase their small town infrastructure at unreasonable rates of return. You are looking to bankrupt them and then have communication kaos. Telcos were deregulated already it seems now ironic that AT&T is about to exact revenge! This is not healthy business practice it is war and will damage the American economy more than any simple deregulation.
Beginrant Not to worry though if the baby bells go bankrupt. You can count on some Microsoft .NET buyout scheme to jump at the chance to serve us better!Endrant
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
You forget that it is basically impossible for CLEC's to install DSLAMs at all POP's because there is "insufficient room" yet when the ILEC wants to expand their equipment there is plenty of rack space. While I agree that the ILEC should not be required to provide networking services for less than the cost of deployment I DO think they should be required to provide undundled access to the DSLAM. Also every expert that isn't employed by the ILECs has stated that this will do NOTHING to speed up broadband rollout and will result in higher prices.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It;s about time someone that understands the actual system speaks out. Most every comment about this subject normally comes from misinformed people or agents of the CLECs. No company should be forced to sell a product or service for less than it costs to provide(no matter what business they are in).
Now the RBOCs can add DSLAMs and fiber where they want without having to give it below cost to to anyone for less than it cost to provide.
Deregulation = BEND OVER this won't hurt a bit. Trust me, you'll like it.
This, folks, is called Capitalism.
No, this is what is called Republicanism. Since Bush and his collection of big business ass-kissers took office, we have seen the Justice Department let Microsoft off the hook with a slap on the wrists, the EPA Clean Air Act gutted, and FCC regulations changed to allow huge media conglomerates to crush their competition. The list of such atrocities goes on and on.
I don't understand why people vote for Republicans and then act shocked that big business controls the government.
You forget that it is basically impossible for CLEC's to install DSLAMs at all POP's because there is "insufficient room" yet when the ILEC wants to expand their equipment there is plenty of rack space.
And when there isn't "sufficient room" for a CLEC's equipment the ILEC will be required either to MAKE more room or to rent their own equipment at the regulated price. Want to bet whether there will be room? B-)
The key is to make it possible for the ILEC to make money on leasing and expanding the legacy (and former-monopoly subsidized) wiring for broadband last-mile, without giving them a competitive advantage on their own uses of it. That's what the FCC is trying to arrange - in the same way the courts pulled it off with long-distance service while leaving the local service as a monopoly. It's a tough act to pull off. But the approach they've chosen looks right.
(Note that they're ALSO trying to break the local POTS service monopoly in half on similar lines. But for that service the switching equipment is ALSO a subsidized legacy, so they're mantaining the requirement that the ILECs share it. But broadband equipment is NOT legacy, so they're instead requiring the CLECs to buy their own, and only requiring the ILECs to share the legacy wire and fiber.)
If the ILECs had their way the FCC would have just assumed that CLECs were dead forever and dropped the sharing requirements completely. Instead the FCC is effectively splitting the ILECs' broadband operation into two businesses - dry/dark wiring and providing services over it - and making the latter half play on an equal footing with the (now mostly hypothetical) CLECs as a customer of the former half. So the FCC isn't giving up on CLECs even now that they're effectively dead.
While I agree that the ILEC should not be required to provide networking services for less than the cost of deployment I DO think they should be required to provide undundled access to the DSLAM.
Which brings us back to the situation before the regulation change - where the ILEC drags its feet on installing DSLAMs, until just about every CLEC is dead and customers only get DSL where it's convenient for the ILEC.
Also every expert that isn't employed by the ILECs has stated that this will do NOTHING to speed up broadband rollout and will result in higher prices.
Please note that I'm a system architect for an independent equipment-manufacturing company, making two kinds of the boxes used by both the ILECs and the CLECs to provide broadband service.
The president of said company made exactly the same case I just did (I'm virtually quoting him) and spent a bunch of time in Washington pushing the FCC toward exactly this ruling - in the hope that the darned Tellcos will get off the dime and start rolling out (and buying more of our equipment) before we go under.
He and I have occasional differences of opinion on some subjects, but we're of one mind on this one. I would hope that we both would qualify as "experts" on this subject. And we're DEFINITELY not employed by ILECs. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way