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!
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
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
Deregulation = BEND OVER this won't hurt a bit. Trust me, you'll like it.