Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Courts Overturn FCC - Return of the Monopoly?

Posted by simoniker on from the do-not-pass-go dept.

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?"

9 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by gkuz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    forced large phone companies to allow companies such as AT&T and MCI

    Am I the only one here old enough to remember when AT&T was a "large phone company"?

    1. Re:Wow... by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What on earth does AT&T do these days, anyway? They've sold off their cable business, they've sold off their cell phone business, they don't do much local phone service (possibly even less, after this ruling)... and isn't their ISP service just a rebranding of someone else's? Aside from long distance phone service, what do they do?

  2. Great by HappyCitizen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it would be better the way it used to be for the consumer. I mean really, now that all the competition is gone, prices will probably skyrocket. Of course, maybe not because the companies no longer have to loose money to competition (if the competition isn't doing so great). Why did they do this? It just makes me wonder..

    --
    http://www.beyourowneviloverlord.tk
    http://www.frozenchickenthrowing.tk
    http://www.killercamel.tk
  3. Correctly worded by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think they mean that large companies like AT&T and MCI were required to allow OTHER companies to offer local phone service.

    Nope, they got it right...

    For example, look into MCI's "Neighborhood Complete" package, which I currently use. Rather than having Verizon for my local service and MCI for my LD carrier, this rule allowed me to use MCI as my local carrier as well - Meaning that I pay only one phone bill per month, for $15 more than I paid to just Verizon each month, and I get unlimited free LD as a bonus (along with voicemail, CID, CW, 3-way, and I think a few others).

    I for one will feel VERY pissed off if I get a call in the next few days from Verizon, telling me that if I don't sign back on with them I will have no phone service. But that seems like precisely the implication of this ruling.


    Whaddya know, for once I find myself on the same side of an issue as the FCC. Ah well, I suppose this will finally give me the incentive to switch to 100% cellular.

  4. This might be a good thing by pavera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With all the municipalities building their own fiber network and alot of master planned communities doing the same, (I work for a company that builds fiber networks for master planned communities) believe me, getting qwest off our backs has been a pain, they demand that we give them access to our network even though we own it, we've had to spend more than 500,000 in attorney's fees just to keep them at bay, with this ruling maybe that issue will go away, municipalities and other private companies can build their networks and we don't have to worry about qwest/sbc et al demanding that we let them have access to our networks.

  5. No competition? Wrong. by mstorer3772 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A: This will damage competition.

    B: This will NOT destroy it.

    You've got a number of local phone options:

    1) your local provider

    2) Cell phones.

    3) Your cable company (though I could be wrong here, it's entirely possible that digital cable/phone will be torpedoed by this. Does anyone know?)

    So that's at least two, possibly three seperate groups vying to give you local service.

    I'm sure the cost will go up, and features may be cut. But I don't think this is some telco apocalypse.

    --
    Fooz Meister
  6. More sides to this story... by ninejaguar · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This isn't as simple a case as at first glance. What the courts are doing is telling the FCC that they're attempts are too weak, and must come up with something better than simply letting states decide how to handle the problem. The courts in this case are on the consumer's side. It's only by accident that Powell's son is also on the court's side as the FCC's rulings, as weak as they were, was far more restrictive than his monopolistic tastes could handle. Powell's son is not a good guy. He is anti-consumer. It just happens that the court would prefer a much more decisive FCC ruling and that the FCC must contend with the problem itself and not pawn in it off to the states. This is why the court chastised the FCC. The article is full of noise by other companies claiming that this was an approval of their business practice. That is incorrect, and simply posturing. The FCC will have to come up with a consumer friendly ruling, or face more rejections from the court. If they don't, this will be decided in the Supreme Court as other litigations are winding their way up. Then you're really gonna start hearing some noise from the companies. However, by then, Powell's son will have been given the boot. Talk about nepotism. I can't believe that loser actually got such a visible post.

    = 9J =

  7. Parallels with the TCA act of 1996? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When they mandated competition for local phone service via the TCA act of 1996 they put loopholes in the laws that allow some shady people to get into the phone business. It was legal for a while (and might still be) to form a small phone company, lease out the equipment and lines from the large local Bell for way below cost, charge 20% less than what it would cost the Bell company to run the thing, and make lots of profit. Not all of these little competitors do this, in fact there are lots of legitimate companies who work to provide the customer with awesome service and who provide much of their own equipment. However, the drag put on the Bell companies is rapidly causing many ofthem to hit financial trouble and cuold eventually force some of them to reorganize or try to get out of land-based phone service entirely. It should be noted that if the Bell companies falter while the shady companies are still attached to them, both the customers of shady companies and Bell customers would be at a loss.

    The law also implemented a double standard: national companies like AT&T and MCI were able to get into the local phone business while regional Bell companies could not enter the long-distance business without going through a rigorous set of checks and requirements that take years to meet (I think BellSouth is only now getting into that market 8 years later...). Overall if AT&T and MCI have had to face even an inkling of the problems over broadband that the Bell telephone companies have had to over telephones, then the law ought well to get thrown out and rewritten, IMHO.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  8. At SBC by z4ce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I knew some people not far below the CTO level at SBC. These regulations basically made it impossible for them to roll out new services. If they would add new lines, they would have to pay to roll out the lines then have to sell them to competitors at a loss.

    These regulations really were slowing the spread of broadband technologies. Of course, the question comes so how should it be priced? The government set prices will always be wrong. Making it either unprofitable for the regional telco or the CELC.

    If the regional telco gets to set the prices, it will of course be way too high.

    The only logical thing I can think of is to do exactly what the court did, throw out the regulations.

    Luckily a host of new technologies should force the telcos to be competitive in the "Communications" space. We have two-way satellite, cell phone-based internet access, wi-fi internet access, broadband over power, and currently most importantly cable modems. In Chicago, my dad actually had a cable modem/VoIP thing sitting outside his house with a little UPS. He had no idea it wasn't using traditional phones lines. He just knew he only had one bill, from the cable company.

    This kind of situation should bring about very low prices without the regulation side effects. Considering how easy it is to switch with number portability and all it should bring about some beautiful Bertend, Duopoly competition.