Courts Overturn FCC - Return of the Monopoly?

An anonymous reader writes "The DC Circuit Court of Appeals today threw out FCC restrictions which previously forced large regional phone companies to allow companies such as AT&T and MCI the ability to offer local phone service. The court also upheld FCC rules that no longer require large phone companies to share their advanced broadband networks of the future with competitors. The USTA response: 'This is a decisive victory for consumers, for innovation and for free markets.' The AT&T response: 'At a time when consumers and small business owners are just beginning to realize the benefits of competition, the D.C. Circuit today held up a stop sign and halted eight years of progress.' Enough about the Baby Bells already -- how is this going to effect my VoIP phone from VoicePulse (similar to Vonage)? Did I switch to VoIP so I can pay $15/month for my phone bill, but will have to pay $80/month for FTTH or some other form of broadband?"

Comments

Correctly Worded

[Yobgod Ababua]

AT&T and MCI (and Sprint) are long distance companies.

Unless the local Bell-equivalents share their last-mile wiring with them, they cannot offer local phone service, because they have no physical connection to the customer.

Re:Wow...

[zerocool^]

ATM / Frame Relay Bandwidth.

We've looked at quotes from AT&T on DS-1 and DS-3 types of bandwidth. They own their own nationwide backbone, and are a tier one provider.

Not to mention their long distance service, and many many payphones which now cost $0.50/call.

~Will

Worried about DSL?

[pagansage]

I'm sure a lot of people are worried about the DSL situation with respect to the smaller companies (i.e. speakeasy). I didn't find any mention of this in the links above but a nytimes article had this at the end:

The court upheld other rules requiring the former Bell companies to allow providers of high-speed DSL Internet service to use their copper wires, but not upgraded fiber optic or fiber-copper lines. The FCC said requiring the companies to provide access to the upgraded lines would deter the former Bells from making better systems.

At least for now...

Re:Confused...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... why should owners of a network be required to open it up to someone else? If I build a network for a location, I don't want to let others onto it unless it makes me extra money and doesn't hurt my income. Shouldn't the free market and not the government dictate something like this?

The issue is that the "Incumbent carriers" already have billions of bucks worth of copper wire (and miscelaneous other stuff) in the ground and strung on poles. That was all subsidized by government-enforced monopoly prices over decades. A new competitor would have to dig up cities (more expensive now than it was back then) and bury his own wires - then try to compete with somebody who already HAS the wires, pretty much already paid off by money extorted from customers while the government enforced the monopoly.

EVENTUALLY they'll have to go to an open market. Like when the already-buried wire is running out and new stuff will have to be installed no matter who is providing the service. (Even then an established company will be ahead, only having to do incremental upgrades.) But right now the incumbent players have a major edge - thanks to past government favors at the consumer's expense. The FCC is trying to level that playing field.

And the court is trying to keep the FCC within the law as written.

Fortunately, the FCC seems to be honestly working for the consumer's interest (as they perceive it) this time, rather than rubber-stamping the industry players' recommendations. And the court also seems to be trying to do that as well (as part of its job of interpreting the law). They just have this little difference of opinion about whether one of the regulations is legit.