Slashdot Mirror
FCC Rules Telcos Need Not Provide Naked DSL
Devistater writes "Despite at least four states' laws to the contrary, the FCC has ruled that phone companies need not provide naked DSL service to customers, but can require bundling; for example: Voice and DSL.
FCC Commisioners Copps and Adelstein say in dissent 'In this decision, the Commission unwisely flashes the green light for broadband tying arrangements.' 'If it is [ok] to deny consumers DSL if they do not [have] analog voice service, what stops a carrier from denying broadband service to an end-user who has cut the cord and uses only a wireless phone? What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?'"
damn! they're taking away my pr0n!
What's next? "FCC Rules Telcos Need Not Provide Naked News"?!
... I'd like to get my party back. Trampling on State rights is definitely not. If you are still voting Republican because of their "conservatism", I'd like to ask you how your lobotomy went.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
1 that was stupid 2 it's a private business providing a service
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
This isnt necessarly bad but i would imagine big companies to take advantage of this. But then again when that happens we will all jump up and cry and something will happen to get them back on track:P Right? My DSL from verizon doesn't come with anything as of right now. Dont worry we will win :P
---
WikiLessons Your online HOW-TO
Take cable television. I'd prefer not to waste my money on the 50 garbage channels and just pay for the several I actually watch. However, I have to pay for packages instead of an al la carte scheme.
As for telephone service. I don't have a land line. I have a cell phone and internet from my cable provider. If my internet came from Verizon through DSL, I could be forced to buy a service just to have internet.
I don't know how much the government should regulate businesses like this, but if you only have one broadband provider in your area and they want to hit you up for more services than you want, there's not much you can do about it.
I hear another court case in the offing.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I guess most people, even most geeks, do not realize that this is really the most important technology fight we have in front of us. Cheap broadband is absolutely necessary for us to move forward.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
'what stops a carrier from denying broadband service to an end-user who has cut the cord and uses only a wireless phone?'
Nothing, that's the point.
'What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?'
Nothing, that's the point.
I swear, it's like you people have never even heard of monopolistic pricing and captive regulatory agencies.
The answer to... what prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP? ...
is CABLE. ain't competition great?
In general f(a+b) != f(a)+f(b).
In this particular case, a and b are services, and f is the cost function. Apply the result and you get your explanation.
"What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?'"
I think that answers why the FCC has ruled this way, the broadband companies who are also phone providers have successfully lobbied for a law that staves off their demise.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
hey, it could go either way. But my money is on it falling down...on us.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Does anyone care that the head of the FCC took home over $1.3million dollars in bribes from telco companies? NOOOooooo
Call it what is is powell, bribed to do what the telcos want. loser
I have 2 DSL lines that are not tied to any phone numbers. I still have my analog line, but I am researching VoIP, but not ready to jump yet. What happens to me? I wonder if they can take it away? or am I grandfathered in.
Whose interests exactly is the FCC protecting besides big corporations? The FCC should be working in the interests of American consumers, and they are so obviously not doing this. These all-or-nothing strategies are being used by more and more megagiants like SBC and leave users with little reason to use, for example, VoIP, even though it's about three times cheaper than SBC's phone service. Thanks a whole fucking lot.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
The telcos and cable companies OWN us. They paid the Republicrats for us.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
...that we are in this mess because the government decided to meddle a long time ago, and there are no easy answers.
Most of the cost of providing phone or DSL service isn't the day-to-day operational cost; it's the cost of running the physical copper cable in the first place. I don't know if the figures are still the same, but at one point it took phone companies 5-10 years to recover their cable-laying investment on new subscribers.
When ADSL first became popular, it was cheap for a very simple reason: Everybody already had a phone line, so the marginal cost of ADSL was merely the cost of the terminating equipment. The physical link was already being paid for out of the phone bill. Take away the landline phone service, and the ADSL cost jumps sharply, since it will now have to cover the formerly "free" copper wiring.
DSL simply doesn't make economic sense without attached landline phone service.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I'm tired of getting screwed over by this administration. But I guess they don't worry about DSL and phone service in the red states. Cutting funding for DARPA research yesterday, now phone companies can refuse DSL service unless you have their analog phone service. What's next? I almost hope Bush gets his SS reform though congress b/c the way seniors vote, we'll have Dems in the white house and a majority of congress in two years flat.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Competition. Can someone explain to me how this is different than any other situation where a company might do something unfair to its users?
Just policy based on law, and based on the mandate given them by congress.
That is to say, write your congressman if you have a beef, don't sit around whining about how much of an asshole you think Powell is.
That's like bitching about the judge who sends you up the river for selling pot, or the cop who busted. They just interpret and enforce the law, they don't write it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
switch over to cable broadband then.
HD Trailers
As a fellow libertarian (presumably, at least financial conservative), I'd like to point out that everything *ELSE* about these carriers is regulated, so its practically a goverment service already.
An extreme example: I, the federal government, make a ruling that only Dell is allowed to sell computers. Dell immediately octuples the prices of all new computers. Your free market argument fails to apply ("people will reject it and the plan will die on the vine") because businesses and people have no practical *CHOICE* but to use computers, a well established commodity (so the actual choice is maintain older computers or go out of business / stop using computers). However, in a free market Dell wouldn't be able to octuple their prices (and if they did, results predictable by the free market would ensue).
My point is, these companies are largely using land granted through government powers (sometimes emminent domain), with massive government loans and some other federal aid I forget about right now. It is not a free market. The competition that exists mostly does so because the government put regulations to better approximate a free market- but really it isn't one.
Note that this ruling does not prevent CLECs like Covad and their ISPs, like Speakeasy.net, from providing naked DSL service. I have this service from Speakeasy. They call it OneLink and I'm no longer an explicit customer of Verizon on that line, although Speakeasy still kicks a few bucks a month back to Verizon; it is their wire and their CO I suppose.
But in the end I have all my services, including VOIP, through Speakeasy.net thanks to naked DSL.
They're called "Código de defesa do Consumidor", or "Consummer defense Code".And it states that no one can couple some product to another.
For example, if you're going to open a bank account the bank can't say that aquiring a credit card is a pre-requisite. Or if you're going to buy a car the reseller can't say that buying the insurance from company X is a pre-requisite.
It's indeed a very nice law... when correctly enforced. Unfortunetely our major DSL provider (Telemar) couples the service to an account on a "internet provider". This is of course nonsense, since the real conectivity provider is Telemar itself... but yet they still require such account. The worst part is that NONE of the so called "internet providers" has full Linux-compatible media content...
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
What I have to question in this debate is, what prevents the consumer from making other choices to better suit their needs? I'm sorry, but in geneneral (metro/suburban areas), DSL is not always the best choice for high speed internet. For myself, living in the suburbs of Seattle, DSL sucks and cable modem was a much better service. And if I didn't have cable, it would have only cost me another $10/mo, which seems more than reasonable.
What I mean to say is, for the most part, the open market will dictate a company's policies. In my area alone, there is a DSL provide that gives unpaired service, several telcos, Cable and i'm sure more.
"I guess most people, even most geeks, do not realize that this is really the most important technology fight we have in front of us. Cheap broadband is absolutely necessary for us to move forward."
Damn! And here I thought a Geek breeding program would be more necessary for us to "move forward".
Nothing.
Why would you think that the FCC cares about the public interest anymore? That line of thought is so old school. Especially when there are corporate interests to protect. And I wouldn't expect the House or Senate leadership to help you out much here - last I heard Billy Tauzin's still cutting deals as a lobbyist for telecom interests on the side (when he's not carrying the bag for pharma or entertainment industries).
That is all.
What stops 7-Eleven from denying you a coffee unless you also pay for the cup? What stops a liquor store from denying you 750ml of Vodka unless you also buy the bottle that it's in? What stops a computer company from denying you a computer unless you also buy an operating system? What stops an operating system company from denying you an operating system unless you also buy the web browser, media player, and solitaire game? What stops a magazine company from denying you a magazine unless you also buy the ads it contains? What stops a printer company from denying you the use of your printer unless you buy ink cartridges?
Why should any business be forced to sell something separately that essentially needs to come in the same package, or at least be used together? The DSL needs to go over the same physical wire that the landline requires. If you don't have a landline, and don't pay for landline service, why the heck should any telephone company be forced to provide DSL over that line?
Business should be free to offer whatever the heck it wants. Consumers should be free to buy whatever the heck they want. Telephone companies have a monopoly over a particular area? In a particular area, if the cable company delivers something better, faster, and cheaper than the telephone company, then the telephone company will ultimately lose revenue, which will stimulate an improvement in the telephone company. Or get broadband through your cellphone carrier. It's not quite as fast as DSL, and not quite as cheap, but it's an alternative choice, if that's what you want.
The 'pro-business' lobby here forgets that the cable and phone companies are usually monopolies in the area -- either by mandate or by de-facto policies.
Both phone and cable companies need to get a 'leeway' to lay cable or overhead lines across everyone's property. This isn't taken lightly, and isn't done for every company that comes-along claiming they want to do it. Furthermore, both cable and phone are essential for emergencies, and thus must have universal coverage. The idea that this is (or should be) in any form a competitive marketplace is... well, misinformed. The bottom line is, it is most efficient to have a _single_ set of cables and wires, not N sets for various hodge-podge company policies.
The problem here is that a for-profit company owns these wires. It's a farce. Really, the local governments should own the wires and contract out the work and the companies that want to 'run' the services over the wires. To do this correctly, we need a completely different legal environment that recognizes natural monopolies and makes them not-profit and as _small_ as possible to enable the _greatest_ amount of competition for auxiliary services.
But, given the current setup, strict regulation is the only answer. Regulation is, BTW, what allowed the whole open-source movement to take-off; in the 70's Ma-Bell (AT&T) wasn't allowed to sell its software, so it gave away enormous IP to the public. This is how Unix came about. The regulation was proper back then, the government realized that the phone was a monopoly, and prevented the phone company from entering other markets (using its monopoly money to distort other market places). Unfortunately, that sensibility started to disappear with the so-called "pro-business" agenda in the 80's and 90's.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>respectively, or to the people.
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
-FCC
i love it when i just have sex i fell ood all over, by the way it is always by myself, please mod me up because this totally involves me and my telco, because look, i love pornj and bye
"I swear, it's like you people have never even heard of monopolistic pricing and captive regulatory agencies."
Well a bunch of "new business model" geeks could pool all that money they saved from not consuming "mass market culture" and string some "pringle's cans" all around the neighbourhood. Providing "GPL broadband" to everyone, "terrorist cells" and "grandma's" alike. You all can connect to the rest of the Internet by climbing up the nearest telephone pole, and tap off a line.
It's those Christian fundamentalists again. They saw the word "naked" and they decided to get it banned.
They work for the present presidential administration. They only hand down rules what Bush wants ; that is to help out the biggest campaign contributors.
well at least in Ontario, we're slowly being offered the choice of 'naked' DSL.
g ename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Artic le&cid=1110150624470
Bell Canada, one of the biggest DSL providers under their Sympatico brand (and also the largest local phone service) is slowly making the naked DSL service an option. It's just become available since March 31 2005 and apparently they are doing a "quiet launch" (i.e. only removing local phone service if the customer requests it.) Of course they aren't advertising it because they probably don't want many of their DSL subscribers to drop their local phone service en mass. As a consumer I'm glad to see this happen as I'm sick of paying an extra $30 a month for a local telephone line that I barely use just so that I can get DSL service (I mostly use my cell phone).
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pa
If you bothered to read the ruling and not the opinion piece, you would know that the ruling merely tells the States to butt out and stop trying to enforce rules that conflict with existing FCC unbundling rules. This rules removes the conflict between FCC and State rules.
Under the existing FCC rules, the encumbant Telco is not required to offer DSL even if your lines are capable of providing it (they do it because its profitable). BellSouth had a policy of not offering DSL if the local loop was being used by a competitive telco to provide analog voice service. Probably due to techincal and billing issues. Some states were trying forcing BellSouth to provide DSL anyway. This was illegal.
This ruling does not automatically mean that the telco will refuse to provide DSL unless you buy voice service from them. In reality, what you'll probably see is the telco providing discounts for getting both DSL and voice service from them. Like Verizon offering cost saving bundles for home and wireless.
I get cablemodem access for 24.99 a month 2 meg download 3 gig cap a day.
ntl did offer me a phoneline with 12 months free line rental which i accepted (why not) but then they ran out of lines...
I like my nice regular monthly bill no variation no worries.
I still might get a landline but pretty much for incoming calls only.
I dont want cable tv i have 800 satellite channels (some are english).
NTL would like to sell me more I am sure but understand I am paying for what i want.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I'd gladly dump my phone servive, and pay a fraction of the money I would save toward better bandwidth.
The only remaining advantage of POTs is that it has its own power (when we had the blackout here in NYC, the landlines kept working).
We paid for this infrastructure held by this monopoly (or, baby monopolies), and it seems only fair that we should get better service from it (or, them).
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
"This is arguably a good thing, but it's not possible for another company to come in and start putting down new phone lines. No chance for competion -> free market reasoning does not apply.
"
Broadband!=DSL.
Broadband is multiple technologies that achieve the same goal.
Here we have Cable, DSL, Wireless, Satellite, and some places have Powerline, and Fiber Optic.
Competition has never been defined as "exactly" alike. Just look at Linux for an example.
Fine, thanks for asking!
The FCC is hoping that residental broadband adds a competitive player coming out of left field -- some form of wireless, power-line, etc. The business case for new companies becomes easier if the FCC lets cable and Baby Bells pursue agendas that alienate early-adopter consumers. Historical example is satellite TV: if cable companies were forced by regulation to provide a good customer experience, DirectTV would have never made it beyond the rural marketplace.
This story actually shocked me that it's even an issue. In Canada it's pretty much a given that since your DSL comes over the phone line, you'd have to have an active phone line to get it.
Where I live (smaller area), there's two broadband providers. The phone company, SaskTel, who requires you to have a voice line, and Shaw, who requires you to have basic cable.
finding a carrier that will meet their needs?
service bundling is very common in Australia - the main telco offers a small % discount if you bundle all services (phone, web, mobile). Another provides extra fast adsl if you bundle phone - this is what I use to get ~ 6/1 Mbit goodness. Yet another requires you to sign up to their phone service if you use their internet.
Surely the whole point of this is to provide a more diverse market? I don't really see what the problem is - as long as there's a demand for a solution, someone will want to provide it.
This is nothing more than a tactic to prop up telco providers because their bubble is about to burst. Given the massive amount of market that cell carriers have already taken from them, large-scale VOIP on the horizon, and competing broadband options (cable for example), it is only a matter of time before their business model fails entirely.
If there's anything that governments are good at doing it's maintaining the status quo. Whether we're talking about an economy that relies too heavily on oil, or something as (seemingly) innocuous as telephone service, governments will always fight against fundamental change or market shifts because it will result in a period of instability.
There's a reason why the connectivity linking the telephone in my house to the telephone system is the same as it was five decades ago when my dad was born (hint - it has nothing to do with free-market or competition).
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
As I see it, the solution to this is wireless. The phone company only has a monopoly because they happen to own the line going to your house, and it is cost prohibitive for a competitor to string their own. Wireless neatly gets around this issue.
...this could be a win for cable. Since forever, every cable operator I've worked for has been only too happy to provide cable modem only and let the customer pick DBS if they want. I can pick and choose or bundle however I like and they've always been of the mind to have this. For the phone companies to fight so hard for something that is only going to bite them in the arse with the public is grossly stupid, but I am not surprised since this is the telcos we're talking about.
Meanwhile I freely choose a service bundle from my cable company for voice, video, and data and save tons over the comparable packages that I would be forced to take or leave with the phone company. It's this sort of thing that caused me to kiss off SBC years ago and never look back.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I assume he beats his wife too. WTF is this bribes stuff? Please document.
But MOST PEOPLE DON'T have that much to spare. The fact is that the cable and telcos are PROFITEERING using a monopoly granted them by the state.
Why is it that muni wifi goes for next to nothing? Because the actual costs are not that graet to provide broadband.
And the politicians have been bought off by the telcos and cable cos.
I say they all need to get some time in jail.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
"The DSL needs to go over the same physical wire that the landline requires. If you don't have a landline, and don't pay for landline service, why the heck should any telephone company be forced to provide DSL over that line?"
Because WE PAYED FOR THAT LINE. Yes, that's right. Much of the infrastructure our phone companies use was publically funded, on the condition that phone companies (a) served some areas that might not otherwise have been profitable enough and (b) would allow competition/reselling over those networks.
I think the more relevant question is: why in the world are we the people still so moronic as to believe private interests will ever deliver a true version of (b)?
What we need is a publically owned and directed network that private services can compete over. But that scares businesses like, oh, Qwest, to death. Without a lock on distribution, innovation and quality of service might be the qualities they'd have to compete on, not how they can manipulate rules for using their network.
And as for (a)... it's not working either. I've been trying to get my parents DSL for eight years. No dice, despite the fact they're a mere two blocks from a technology office park.
This recent DSL ruling is dinosaurs protecting their turf, not the free market at work.
Tweet, tweet.
GOAL! GOAL! GOAL!
Did you expect the FCC to side on the position of the consumer, the tax payer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA SUCKER.
Damn it.. wheres that boat with the fucking tea on it... i know its around here somewhere.
Burn the FCC down.
Yea, thats why I went to cable modem and got VOIP.
Government doesnt overhaul itself. The people overhaul the government.... with guns.
Yes, the telcos. They are going to get greedy, start requiring phone lines with DSl...
Meanwhile over at CableLand, they are going to sell you VOIP, TV and internet for the same amount you can get DSL and phone lines together. That combined with much faster bandwith to a lot more people mean phone companies are going to be HURTING in just a few years as everyone and thier grandmother gets lured in by the low, low cable pricing.
Community wireless internet is the dark horse here.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Complain to the FCC here and then write your Congressional representatives (figure out who your representatives are here. If you cant take the time to figure out how to do this properly, then you must not care that much.
What's to stop us from creating our own cheap/free broadband?
You mean wired or wireless? The bought-and-paid-for FCC regulates wireless in the United States, and bought-and-paid-for state governments regulate wire-line, some even banning cities from setting up their own tax-funded networks.
As I see it, the solution to this is wireless.
Which the FCC also controls. Watch the local cable company and the local telco buy up all the spectrum and then jack up the price of DSL because fixed-wireless competition can't buy its own spectrum to run WiMAX. And/or watch state communications commissions ban municipal WiMAX service.
It's essentially what happening here. Phone companies should/could turn into mega isps and could offer their own VoIP service for a cheaper rate than Vonage does.
I think this could end up damaging the Phone co's in the long run given that there are other companies out there that would love to take a share of the "we'll provide the services all through your (cable/satalite/phone/power/etc. line"
--pete
....access over it's network, I fail to see why telcos should be forced to do the same. Don't tell me about technical hurdles in doing so-it can be done.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
Check out the above documentary link on IMDB and immediately go and rent this movie (or not). I for one welcome our new(?) Corporate Overlords.
Here we have Cable, DSL, Wireless, Satellite, and some places have Powerline, and Fiber Optic.
Several points:
With all that said, this is just one more reason not to use the local telco in my book. DSL sucks cable balls anyway, and forcing you to take the land-line with the service clearly serves no benefit other than protecting their ass from VOIP and cell-phone companies.
With all that said, this is just one more reason not to use the local cable company in my book. Cable sucks DSL balls anyway, and forcing you to take the MPAA TV subscription with the service clearly serves no benefit other than protecting their ass from satellite TV companies.
They say that this is required by ANATEL, our version of the FCC. Here's an informative page that attempts to detail the rules set by the agency. In fact, most of ABUSAR's website is very handy for brazilian broadband users.
Hint: use commercial Velox numbers instead of your residential one and cancel your ISP. I don't know if Rio's will work with you if you live in another state, but I, uh, know someone who could give you one of those. Not me, of course... *wink*
Next thing you know, they'll sue a certain aged woman for showing her boob on TV in prime time. What the world is coming to?
Oh, please, let's not pretend actual costs and telecom have anything to do with each other. These are the guys who charged us thousands of dollars over the years for a simple telephone, because they wouldn't let you buy one at the store and plug it into their precious network.
That's so funny. Because here DSL is abotu as widespread a ISDN (don't know anybody with either). And cable is all over the place. DSL was never available anywhere where I lived (even when downtown across from a CO), and cable always was... My theory is they don't want customers, so they don't make it available ;)
:) Best of both worlds.
So instead I got faster cable, and inexpensive VoIP over it
Ok, I'll bite. The Center for Public Integrity reports that FCC officials had accepted nearly $2.8 million in travel and entertainment expenses over the past eight years, mostly from the telecom and broadcast industries they regulate. This extends to Michael Powell, who seemingly maintained the status quo. Recently however the department has changed its policies and is requesting more federal funds for travel to replace what was once paid for outside of the goverment.
30 characters are fine for a s
There is a $10 fee on top of my ~$30 cable broadband service to get it without cable TV. does anyone else get this? My service is thru Charter.
anyone who thinks that Telco's are trying to "recoup" losses associated with the copper plant is just naive. ... If you don't believe me call your ilec and ask. Even better ask to have it removed...that's always good for a laugh.
But this reverse bundling still serves to support and extend the monopoly. It probably should be made illegal. Note that Microsoft does much the same thing -- getting their their monopoly OS bundled with various competing computer mfrs.
Easy: dump DSL and get a cable modem instead. Our local cable network was just upgraded to 5Mbps anyways. Beats that pants off local DSL all for $44/mo.
I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with the FCC, because I really don't care. But I will give this opinion - it makes sense to me, because in order to use the broadband, they have to provide the service for the phone line since the technology sits on top of it.
I have a cable modem, and in order to use it, I HAVE to also be signed up for cable television. Although I only have basic channels, it's an extra $15 per month I'd rather not spend. But I like my cable modem, so I pay it.
If you really don't want their phone service, then make a decision not to get it. Use some other broadband. Or, convince yourself that your DSL costs the total for both. Considering the low speeds and moderately high costs of ISDN we had only so many years ago as the only less expensive solution to T1s for 24/7 connectivity - I don't see why anyone is complaining.
Antisource - antivirus, antispam, antispyware
The Bush administration's Dept. of Justice has
announced that all is forgiven to AT&T (Ma Bell),
in keeping with the non-penalties involked against
MSFT in their anti-monopoly lawsuit.
The regional (baby) "Bell" telcos have just
announced a conference during which the telcos
are expected to plan their re-merger.
The FCC has just announced that the television
and radio media conglomerates will now be
permitted to own up to 100% of any given market.
The FCC and the FTC have just come out in a joint
declaration that dialup ISPs, WiFi-based ISPs,
and independent DSL service providers have been
issued C&D orders for their business operations.
Federal mediators are expected to offer these
independent operators up to 10 cents on the
dollar, dependent upon the number of customers
they can bring to the table.
Way to go, FCC!
Silly, greedy, misguided old phone companies.
Let them go out of business as a consequence of forcing people to buy products they don't want or need.
It'll be a good laugh as a case study on "what NOT to do" in B-schools 5 years from now.
Troll?! How exactly? While i know its fashionable to bash our capitalist economy on slashdot, the vast majority of people well educated in economics agree that this *is* the most efficient way of "doing things". Free market is what we base a lot of our principles on, and companies *should* be able to offer whatever they want to offer.
Most of us have our choice of DSL providers: Vote with your wallet, if you want naked dsl, go with Speakeasy's One service, which caters to that need.
The only crime here is that CABLE (not dsl) is allowed to monopolize geographical reasons, which effectively locks consumers in to one choice. That is completely and totally against free market principles.
I'm sorry if i didnt go along with the mainstream and bash all that is business, but use your brain for a second... troll?
No, in fact they are not. They have been treated as "persons" for many years based on a mistaken reading of a 19th century court rulling that did not in fact decide the issue.
Of course, they're not going to tell you that, are they?
--MarkusQ
Very well said, the same appears to apply for Canada as well as the USA :-(
The free market can generate monopolistic behaviour, like "tying", but in each case it represents an opportunity to undercut the monopolist and capture the market for those consumers who are being bullied.
Eg: if telcos tie DSL to voice, there is an opportunity for outsiders to market alternative broadband technologies such as direct-connected ethernet or subscriber wireless.
in some states dsl is the only show in town and this makes it impossible for people to use voip providers for their voice service (and save)... how can the fcc know what's best for every state?
Get your torrents...
The telcos are saying "If you want to use our copper wires for DSL (from us or anyone else), you have to pay us line rental fees (or whatever they call it) for a local phone too", right?
Why is this bad? We have the same thing in australia too...
charge the RBOC for access to your land? It is a free market and they can always try another way to access your home.
Ok, what we really need, is for all us F/OSS enthusiasts to go out, buy an island, and form our own country, with an entirely FDL'd constitution. w00t! Open Source Government here we come!
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?
Competition.
Next!
Actually, that article describes Powell effectively working to change a longstanding policy, well predating the Bush administration, and it describes absolutely no use of outside travel money by Powell himself. The claim of Powell taking money in this thread is still unsubstantiated.
Anyone can provide internet connectivity as DSL service or any way they want to do so, and the FCC has ruled it's not subject to local regulation and if you're not the dominant provider you're not subject to FCC regulation either.
Anyone can offer VOIP telephone service without local regulation as the FCC has ruled VOIP is not subject to local regulation and generally VOIP providers are not subject to FCC regulation at all.
So why can't a company simply offer DSL or internet connectivity to people's houses and offer them the option of VOIP if they want it? Done that way, it has absolutely no state regulation and isn't federally regulated. I'm surprised more telephone companies haven't gone that route and thus completely eliminated state or federal regulation of their operations altogether.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Methinks the FCC looked at the potential loss of income that coincides with those "bundedled" packages. I complain every time I see these "service taxes" and other surcharges. 911, yes, but two charges from the feds, one from the state, another for the city, and one more unknown adds up after awhile.
If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
Do you want a piece of me, punk?
;-)
[portuguese]
Putz, Carlos!!
Você veio lá do Debian-RJ me catar aqui, só pra me dar lição de como burlar o Velox!? Vá catar coquinhos!
Te vejo na próxima reunião!
Abraço,
Victor
[/portuguese]
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
force me to buy cable TV that I don't want, instead of phone service I don't want?
Or is it actually possible to get them to sell you cable internet without any tv attached?
Its not like DSL is the only option available either. Go cable.
If cable doesn't fit your needs (I find this part surprising since you can ram more data down coax than a phone line), get satellite broadband or even microwave. Still don't like that? Move, or get fiber to your home.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
I mean, look at President Bush. He is for big government and defecit spending. He is against states rights and favors external nation-building. These are not traditional conservative values.
I'm glad Republicans are starting to wake up and say, "Hey, wait a minute!" These guys aren't even conservative!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
So instead of naked DSL, you have to buy phone service. The cheapest plan you can get in VA if you are not on fscking food stamps costs $19/mo by the time you get done with all the junk fees and taxes.
The best part is that you don't need to have phone service to have a cable modem, and the $20/mo requirement to have phone service makes cable modems look like a mighty fine deal.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
When I had my cable modem, not only was I not forced to buy their cable TV, they didn't even offer a discount on the bundled package if you got both video and internet service from them.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
So they've won the right to force me to seek another provider that doesn't make me to buy what I don't want. As long as there is someone else who wants my money more then the phone companies do they'll be the only ones losing from this kind of practice.
God slashdot get it right. Democrats are conservatives too. You stupid hicks.