Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Deregulation of DSL
Phlatline_ATL writes "In an article on ArsTechnica, they explore the FCC's current consideration to reclassify DSL as an information service and as such would no longer require the telcos to lease out their lines. This seems like it would effectively make the telcos the exclusive DSL broadband providers." From the article: " So after six months to a year it would be goodbye Earthlink and Speakeasy, hello SBC DSL monopoly (in the case of Chicago, where I live). So the telcos would get what they want, which is no competition while the consumers get screwed. But it's perfectly logical under the FCC's definition of broadband competition, where they want cable to compete with DSL--and hopefully IP over power lines and WiMax down the road."
"If only we were allowed to keep their lines all to ourselves," they say, "we would hurry to get fiber laid to every house in the land and offer faster and wider range of services."
It's not exactly as if DSL has been a "competitor" by any means in any area I have lived in. Its distance requirements, slow speeds, and typical poor telco customer service has always lagged behind services offered by Cable. This is speaking only from my limited experience with four different DSL providers and two cable providers so obviously YMMV.
When I first got DSL in the summer of 1998 from Epix/Commonwealth in PA it was 640/160 and remained that until 2003 (IIRC, I wasn't living at home anymore) at which time they bumped the service to 1.5/384 to "compete" with Adelphia cable. Five years stuck at half the speeds? Problem was that there was NO competition because Adelphia was only broadband downstream and analog upstream in many areas for quite some time.
Out at college we got DSL in the fall of 1999 when we moved into an apartment. Verizon offered the lines and we took up the local freenet ISP as they were cheap. They were offering 768/128 on overcooked DSLAM racks (two racks per T1 instead of one rack per T1 like it was supposed to be) and speeds were consistently in the 40kB/s range. No one would take blame and would always finger point at the other guy (it's the ISP's fault, no it's Verizon's fault!)
Roadrunner came to town in the fall of 2000 and we dropped DSL quickly. While our latency in online gaming went up so did our download speeds. At first it was a bit over 1.5mbs but quickly went up to 3mbs. There was no finger pointing as RR handled both the ISP and the line. Was it good? Certainly for me it was. Faster speeds, less downtime, and no finger pointing. Comcast was smooth in MN but working for them in OH I knew that there could be serious issues (depending on your location) with speeds, intermittent bloc-sync, etc. 1.5mbs and then 3.0mbs w/o any real problems. Problem here was DSL wasn't even available and if it was, it was only 640/128 for more money...
My idea of DSL being competitive changed only slightly when I moved in August of 2004 to a house that offered Charter (no servers w/blocked ports) and DSL (Frontier and ISP choice). I went with Frontier and Visi (local kick ass ISP that allows servers). For once in my DSL using life I am happy w/the speeds (currently 3712/448) and the service. Visi handles everything for me so I just contact one point. I would be *extremely* upset if I had to go back to Frontier as they don't allow online bill pay, aren't very nice on customer support, and are likely not as knowledgeable as Visi's guys. Charter, charging $39.99/mo for the Internet (I think it was only $11 for CATV making it a total of $52) was a ton less money than Visi/Frontier at over $60 (requiring me to have a voice line and the $25/mo ISP charge). For most the price alone is a no brainer. For me, because of the server issue, the couple extra bucks is worth it.
So in all those years Cable hasn't improved all that much and neither has regulated DSL. So where's the competition driving faster speeds? How will deregulating DSL do anything?
It's sometimes better for the customer to use the same line and ISP and it's sometimes better to use the ISP different from the line, but it's *always* better to give the customer a choice.
So, the FCC is going to "do us a favor" and push for businesses to continue to fuck their customers over? Freedom to choose is always a better option to than freedom for businesses to do what they want... They have proven time and time again that they don't have competition as they already charge astronomical rates for the lines. They probably can make more money by finger pointing and less staffed CSRs for their own ISP. What incentives do they have to move to high capacity lines if the only other option is Cable? None. Especially when it's in the best interests of the Cable company to keep their available down
Why I never!
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
They're not the cheapest, but their staff is the most knowledgable I have seen, and they're definately the most Linux-friendly.
The more people that switch away from SBC the more money the competition has to fight this stuff.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I thought Lassiez Faire supported regulation to the point where there would still be competition? Monopolies are not only bad for the consumer, they are bad for the economy. With 2 or 3 competing companies, not only can prices fall to below $30 for broadband, but each of the companies creates jobs. Of course the FCC has been in bed with the telco industry for some time.
with allowing a company to profit from the infrastructure they have built without being forced to allow other companies to profit from it! The bottom line is that there is real competition when it comes to competing technologies. The fact is, cable is eating DSL's lunch!
You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
it's be an SBC-Yahoo DSL monopoly. SBC's not the only one benefitting.
Didn't the FCC promise telecos that they wouldnt have to share Fiber lines with competitors? Why do they need this too? They have incentive to get to FIOS-like services and drop DSL completely. If anything, having to share DSL lines with competitors made moving to fiber more appealing to the big telecos. Sounds like telecos trying to make money through government intervention instead of being creative and bringing new products to market.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Clearly SpeakEasy and Earthlink don't know how to properly bribe officials to keep themselves in business. It's their own fault, really.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
This seems like one of those grand opportunities, like the building of the U.S. highway system, where the government could step in and provide universal internet access. Such a move would make it possible for people out in the countryside to get broadband and access to high speed internet services.
The current problem is that the vastness of America means that private companies don't find it cost effective to hook up Ma and Pa Kent out in the sticks. But under a government system, those people would get the service.
A lot of people don't want to pay for that, I'm sure. However, if you consider that the reason you have your broadband is because it just happens that you are lucky enough to live in a densely populated area. People who run farms and are otherwise far away from the crowds of cities simply can't generate enough demand to make it worth the broadband companies' while to hook them up.
This deregulation is the opposite direction that the FCC should be taking. There are certain things that the government ought to provide, or ought to subsidize in large amounts, and one subset of those is basic utilities. The Internet is one of the utilities that will be key in the future of our country. It makes sense that we get a jump on it now and wire (figuratively speaking. Wireless would work as well) the whole country up.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
I wonder if their hope extends to hoping that broadband-over-power-lines magically doesn't spam the radio spectrum with interference. Last we heard, it did...
Mind the Gap
Isn't that like saying only one company is allowed to make pencils, and another to make pens, and those two companies will compete? They fight with the marker company and the crayon company too?
Is this what competition now is?
Dude- I clicked your sig link about Pizza. Who is the huge blonde lady? Is that the mean waitress? You shouldn't have her pic up there like that, it is mean.
hopefully IP over power lines
I've heard IP over power lines for local bandwidth delivery described as "Internet Fools Gold." Its an apt description -- so far everyone who has put money into it has lost their investment. Further, anyone with a basic understanding of radio should understand that a long unshielded wire is also known as an antenna. IP over power lines is fated to deliver unlawful "harmful interference" everywhere its attempted.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
They were reaping huge profits when millions of households had second lines installed for dedicated lines to their modems.
Now they cry foul when someone wants to use their line for something other than a dialup modem.
I wish our government would get a backbone and do things like they did in South Korea. They went from barely any broadband to broadband everywhere in less than 10 years.
Every time a heavily regulated industry is deregulated, it costs me more money. Like my cable bill that has trippled. It also causes catastrophic collapse, does anyone remember the savings and Loan crash in the 80's? How about the airline industry, that business model is so bad now that the taxpayers are keeping them all alive because the can't make money on a bet. Congress needs to get a clue. When they relaxed regulation of utilities my bills went up and service went down. This happens every time because greed will always overcome intelligent business practices.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
and I cant say it comes as a big shock. Just take a look at who gets put into the positions to make these these decisions and their connection to the industries they are supposed to be watching. Our gubment make one decision after the next that helps big business. All the while the consumer gets the shaft. Just as with most cases, things will get worse before they get better.
Everyone seems to be viewing these things from the point of view if the consumer. If you look at it from the telco's POV, they are have spent billions of dollars over many years to build and an infrastructure, then the government comes along and says "good job, you must lease that infrastructure to your competitors for $X".
Capitalism isn't just about consumers, it's also about businesses. Telco's do have competition from cable and soon to be/hopefully wimax.
Remeber, the who point of capitalism is that if the telco's start to get greedy and turn up the prices too much, some other company will come along and find a way to provide the same or better service for a lower price. There's a natural equilibrium.
Jerry
Is that the mean waitress?
We had a waiter.
Okay- say what you will about deregulation, whatever. The issue to me, is that these lines are on public property, and in public airspace... Would another company be allowed to build poles and run lines right next the current lines? If not, it seems that the phone companies should have to share/lease them out at a fair price.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
The FCC already classifies cable-modem service as an 'information service' under the telecom act. (See the recent Brand-X decision from the US Supreme Court.) If cable modem service is an information service, then I see no reason that DSL isn't -- they carry exactly the same thing.
The real problem here is that there's not a whole lot of in-between: either you're an information service and barely regulated, or you're a telecommunications service and heavily regulated. To me, the scariest thing about the 'information service' classification is that it allows the carrier to decide what to carry and how to do it.
For example, your cable company starts offering a VoIP service -- what's to keep it from degrading Vonage's VoIP service? What about when they degrade IP video feeds that compete with their own pay-per-view services?
Antitrust law can take care of some of this problem, but it's a hard case to make.
I think deregulation is a great idea. My cable modem service is good and the price is right, even though the cable company isn't forced to share with anyone. Think of it this way, would you build costly new infrastructure and spend a lot on maintenance if you were forced to share what you built with your competitors?
In the setup as it's currently implemented. The telco becomes a wholesaler and the companies that lease the lines become retailers. Sounds like a wash to me.
The infrastructure built by the Bells was heavily subsidized by... your tax dollars.
Just not a lot. Truth is, most markets that have DSL available, have cable available as well. That's competition.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for lots of competition. Remember the break-up of Ma Bell? For a few years, everybody pissed and moaned that it was a failure. Phone bills became confusing. You actually had to buy a phone instead of renting one. But now, it's hard to imagine going back.
Best Windows Freeware
In my area there is 1 cable provider, Adelphia, and to get a static ip from them you first need to "upgrade" to a business line which is $99.99 plus pay an additional $20.00 per static ip for 6000/768.
Right now my DSL is $60.00 a month for 6000/768 and it comes with a static ip.
The FCC should start regulating the cable companies and stop worrying about the dsl companies.
Would another company be allowed to build poles and run lines right next the current lines?
McLeod has Fiber running 150 feet from my house along County Rd 46. I don't have access to those lines and they are likely sharing the "public space".
So why are they being treated differently? If we are going to regulate/deregulate due to public space I want access to that Fiber.
garcia and TripMasterMonkey are both karma whores.. they actually spend their time subscribing to Slashdot and then refreshing Slashdot until the new story is up so they can get first post.
they both can't live without the attention because they both fail at being accepted in life, so they need people to lavish praise and attention onto them in the online world. they literally think their karma and post moderations is how much they are accepted by the world.
Neither the Slashdot posting nor TFA mentioned Covad, a wholesale DSL provider. This decision would not only effectively put them out of business, it would also have a chilling effect on all of Covad's customers: the smaller ISPs who concentrate on offering a little down-home, personalized service for their DSL customers.
The article doesn't say whether this ruling will have any effect on phone service. Does it just mean that your DSL will be bound to whatever phone service you choose, or will phone service also end up being tied to the local Baby Bell who owns the wire to your house?
I've been using a local ISP for several years now. While they've done some odd things (blocking ports without notice), it was great to have a human being to talk to with simply a phone call. I also have a static IP address so that I can run my own web server. The speed has been great, especially the latest no-cost upgrade to 1.5 Mb. True, cable is faster, but I've loved the flexibility of DSL.
Sadly, if Qwest is no longer forced to cooperate with ISPs, my account will simply be closed and I'll be forced to pay through the nose for the features I want (primarily a static IP address), and that's assuming they even do it.
If I want to keep a static IP address, I'm stuck with DSL. The alternatives are all lousy. Any suggestions?
I jest, but I really miss the old days of the late 90's where mom and pop ISPs were everywhere and the internet was independant of major corporations. I'm not as nostalgic seeing I have a connection 100 times faster what I did then on dialup but I feel that letting these companies create monopolies will only stagnate the technology and we won't "fiber to the curb" anytime soon.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I know most of you are like, "no, monopolies are teh suck," but in states with low-broadband deployment, it will encourage telephone companies to spend the money for DSL stations and repeaters. Telephone companies have been slow to provide the new DSL infrastructure because they feared that as soon as they'd do it, the competition will take their possible subscribers away, and the DSL infrastructure will have been installed at a loss to them. Sometimes, monopolies can be good as it's an incentive to get things done. I live in a rural part of Kentucky and though Lincoln County is better off than many other counties, this will incourage BellSouth and Verizon to invest in the DSL infrastructure. Sadly, we don't have cable TV (cable TV means eventual cable Internet) here either and no lines are coming out soon--the satellite providers have already taken their business.
- Danny
My turn for a rant. I have DBC DSL in chicago. Originally, i wanted it on my house line, but SBC coudn't get my house line installed in time. I'm on call tech support, so work provided a second line with DSL on it. It was ordered a week after my main line, but still got installed before my main line did. Whatever, it's free. Fast forward 12 months, my work is no longer paying for the second DSL line. Fine, was nice to get it for free, but I can pay, no problem.
1) I get to pay the switching charge since they have to send a tech to come to my apartment building to make the switch. I don't have multiple circuits to my phone "port", they have to send a guy to the punchdown block in the boiler room.
2) I say I don't need a modem, since i have one thta's just a few months old. They don't give me one, but they manage to bill me for it. I still have to call and have it removed from my bill.
3) They never gave me a modem, nor any info on getting my account set up. I had to get to second level tech support (which was surprisingly good, though he treated me like an idiot at times). Took a day or so from the install to get me logged on.
As a funny aside, they refused my first login name initially. My last name is Homolka, and they must be filtering out "homo".
All of this doesn't sound really bad but my bigger issue is their support lines. Every time I call they ask "we'd like you to be satisfied, are you satisfied?" and I say no, and ist out my complaints. Once someone said "well, maybe they'll check this call in training and do something for you". you mean, you can't trigger a look? You're that powerless?
I'd go toother DSL, but in some ways, I'm still paying to SBC since they own the lines. Sometimes I want to do VOIP and ditch SBC, but i need broadband, so it's either SBC (underneath) or Comcast, which also sucks (my cable is out today BTW).
Me - Guy whose gf has no idea why I read "slashthing" 5 times a day.
Yeah... right. That really happened. Is this then the deregulation of deregulation? It seems that this time the deregulation will reestablish the monopolies, but without government regulation. At least before AT&T was broken up, there was some regulation, and they couldn't gouge people TOO much.
I guess I'll just continue using my other-unregulated-monopoly cable modem.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
The comment above that phone companies will become "exclusive DSL broadband providers" is nonsense. They are already they exclusive providers of DSL broadband. The only reason that non-phone companies can appear to offer DSL is because the government is forcing the phone companies to do it. Everyone who thinks that the government forcing a business to sell something to someone else for a specified rate should move to France or China right now. It is only through phone company deregulation that we got DSL in the first place. There is no justification for government regulation of DSL and there never was.
I don't really mind either way how it works, but I think there should be a level playing ground. Why should DSL companies be regulated as a non-information service when cable companies have escaped that regulation. Seems pretty silly to me.
Change things one way or the other, but regulate or don't regulate both DSL and cable the same way!
Don't you think that telcos might like third parties? It's easy money. They don't have to support end users, and so they get a fixed fee every month for very little continued effort.
As a Speakeasy customer who relies on their static to get work done, I was greatly alarmed by this article on Ars when it was posted yesterday. So, I did a little digging, and found this article. From it, I learned that the FCC is now only considering dropping the requirements that carriers must resell their finished DSL services, not the actual CLECs that rent the lines and have phsyical equipment in COs such as Covad. The following quote from the article illisutrates their evolving position:
Since Speakeasy resells Covad services (or at least they do in my case), Speakeasy isn't going anywhere. Granted, no agreement has been met yet, but it appears that a block of the FCC Commissioners is looking out for us. It is a bit disturbing to FCC mucking with these rules in anyway. It is clear that they don't understand the degree of reliance folks have on these services for their livelihoods.
Are you peolpe out of your minds!? This is one of the greatest things to happen to a consumer in the field of broadband! How can you fear an SBC monopoly without recognizing the monopolies in the cable industry that this ruling would jepordize? If Comcast no longer has a stranglehold on the industry, just think of how inexpensive broadband can become. The United States will have a fighting chance against other countries that are currently more broadband friendly.
It's not just about who is in control of DSL here. It's all sorts of broadband information that is competing against each other. Both SBC and Verizon both are trying to push TV services through their respective broadband services. This will force cable companies to compete both pricewise and content wise.
I don't know about you guys, but if there is any way to get FIOS to my house so I can get moderatley priced internet AND tv, is one hell of a good thing!
ym = your money spent on elections & followup calls
yt = your time spend on elections & followup calls
wm = your money spent on movies, games, etc...
wt = your time spent on movies, games, etc...
Telcos time + money spent on campaigns & elections is greater than yours.
On the other hand, if average Americans were to reallocate most of wm + wt into ym + yt, then the Telcos (and other big-business special interests) wouldn't stand a chance.
Either reallocate your resources to make a difference, or stop bitching about the results achieved by those that focus their resources on elected officials.
It's nice to have this as an option, but it really doesn't encourage innovation in the way that free markets are intended to. Having a lot of resellers working off the same network has not made upgrades to that network happen any faster, and may in fact have retarded them. There's also no decent excuse for why cable gets to keep a monopoly on their network and the telcos don't.
But removing competition doesn't seem likely to improve the situation, either. Really, the right answer here is to make our networks public or semi-public infrastructure, like roads or powerlines (respectively). But that won't happen overnight.
Truly, the future of broadband is either fiber to everyone's doorstep, or some kind of pervasive wireless.
The cell phone companies are in a good position to get wireless broadband everywhere, since they already have the towers. Fiber...either the telcos or the cable providers will have to build that. My bet is on the telcos, since once they drop fiber everywhere, they can start offering TV service. You don't need a cable plant if everything is digital.
The next 10 years are gonna be interesting.
So, without competition over DSL and Cable, will consumers be "allowed" to have municipal WiFi, or will the monopolies still cry foul?
What about areas where the is no competetion (with cable, etc)? It seems to me like this ruling will be ambivalent at best for people in large metro areas, but rural America - whose broadband infrastructure is still spotty at best, and often unavailable - gets screwed.
I grew up and my parents still live in a small town (~1200 people) in northeast Ohio. Broadband cable became available from Adelphia - the only cable provider in the area - about 4 years ago, and the bargain price of $59.95/mo w/o cable TV. I convinced my folks to try it...it was only slightly more than paying for a second phone line and dial up. It was an improvement, but just barely. Terrible uptimes, slow speeds (lucky if a download broke 35kb/s), and other crap...but still not dial up.
A couple of years ago, SBC took over the local telco, upgraded the equipment, and offered DSL to those lucky enough to live in town. 1.5m/512k service for $30 a month. I got my parents switched over and the difference is astounding. They're currently getting 3.0m/768k service for $26.95. I thought, "WOW! Broadband has become cheap, widely available, and fast!"
Not so. I am heading back to college this fall to begin studying law. The local population near the school is about 10x the size of my home town, so i figured they had to have good broadband, eh? I called the cable company. They don't service my street. Ok. I called the telco. After initially telling me I couldn't get DSL, they called me back to say that I could, in fact, but that they had to manually verify the "rural" address by sending someone in a truck.
In order to get DSL, I had to subscribe to local phone service. After much haggling over packacges I didn't want, I finally got them to give me *just* local service for $17/mo. 1.5mb/128k(!) will be $50/mo more; effectively, $67/mo for crappy broadband. I'm being bamboozled.
After I had signed up for a one year commitment with the Telco, I found out that a local ISP offered DSL for $7 less per month. The moral of the story? ANYTHING that has the potential to reduce number of options available to consumers is bad. I had another choice I didn't know about...but at least it was there.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Why does the American government continue to believe that simply changing a regulation will suddenly create competition?
Giving telcos monopoly rights to the lines put in under heavy government subsidies will not entice them to allow any tpye of competition.
It seems to me that lines to consumers (data, electric, gas) can never be a competitive market--who's going to have six different natural gas lines into their home or apartment building? It's impractical.
The proper thing to do is for the government or it's designated non-competitive company to run the infrastructure, and let competitors rent space.
Consider how rail services in Europe were opened for competition--the government owns the tracks, and competing companies run the trains (Britrail in the UK, similar in Sweden).
I've got mixed feelings about this.
On one hand SBC has been refusing to turn up DSL in my area specifically because they've been waiting for this to happen. The hardware was in place and going through "final testing" five years ago when we first moved in. I heard this from both SBC and the town's tech guru. So if this goes through then maybe they'll finally turn us up and I can get off of dial-up.
One the other hand, do I want SBC to have more of a monopoly then they already have?
It wouldn't effect me so much because SBC is my carrier for local, long distance, and cell phone anyway but the libertarian in me hates the idea of having no choice and nowhere to go if SBC ever pisses me off.
Of course if WiMax or whatever new technology takes off in my area so I can get broadband without going over a phone line I would cancel my landline anyway. I've been trying to get my wife used to the idea that calling long-distance over the landline when she's got 1500-some anytime minutes + free nights and weekends on her cell is a waste of money. So far her long distance calls have fallen under our regular package so haven't been costing extra but her brother is moving his family halfway across the country in a couple of weeks so that could change.
I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
It's not as though the telco's haven't been subtly anticompetitive up to this point. I work for a regional DSL provider who leases Bell lines (specifically BellSouth). There is a never ending stream of problems with the bell systems. For example, when we switch a customer it can take up to two weeks to take effect, but when a customer switches back to Bell, very often, our DSL service is cut within 24 hours of their order being placed even though bell service will not be in place for a few more days.
Do we think this will pass? Absolutely. That's wyh we are taking this opportunity to look at other technologies like wireless, so really, in the end this is probably a good thing for competition.
Luckily in my area (northern NJ, now), we've got *some* broadband choice.
It's amazing though, it depends on where you live, what service you will get.
Until recently, we had verizon DSL, but it was restrictive, hard to operate the included router, slow, and was very very very prone to disconnects. It would frequently go down for hours at a time. Verizon's solution was to "power down all computer, powerdown the DSL, and power everything back up" which wouldn't always work. and it was a pain to power down 8 computers.
That's when I got speakeasy. I got them because they had less restrictions, faster advertised speeds (I didn't qualify for hte 6mbit, so I had to get the 1.5. I'm over 10000 feet from the CO, so yeah), and I got 8 static IPs with the slashdot promotion. It's been really good, except not the speed I was used to when I had cable.
Where I'm living now, we've got comcast cable. I had them back in 1998-2000 when I lived in this area last, and the experience was horrible. Their tech support was sub-par and didn't know anything except windows, and it took them 3 months to send a tech to my house to replace the modem. The damned thing wasn't powering on, yet the guy on the phone said "well, we can communicate perfectly fine with the modem, so it's got to be your computers. Here, go to the start button adn go to settings......" The guy didn't understand how I could not have a start button. So, I hate comcast, now.
I've gotta move again, and I hope I qualify for faster speakeasy. and I hope this deregulation doesn't affect that.
besides, what about the other DSL providers? What about Covad? What are businesses going to do? Verizon businessclass DSL is grossly expensive for the same service/hardware you get with the home service, and they still block ports on you, and now they're blocking my outgoing email unless I use their SMTP servers.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
As someone who remembers how "long-distance" phone calls were once a rare and expensive thing to do, I think deregulation of telecommunications (and the breakup of the Bell system monopoly) were a really good thing for consumers.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Voice - Data - Voice - Data - Voice - Data... arggghhh! When will the regulators realize that it is irrelevant?
The question is: Are companies that lay telephone lines considered natural monopolies? If they are, then they should be regulated and should be required to lease their lines to third parties. If they are not natural monopolies then they should not be regulated and they should not be required to lesae their lines.
Why is that so difficult? My theory is that people don't seem to understand that, in the case of a natural monopoly, regulation INCREASES competition, not decreases it. Capitalists always want to remove regulation to increase competition. But they have it backwards in this case.
It seems to me that any company that can lay lines of any kind (power, POTS, fiber) is a natural monopoly. It is prohibitively expensive to do, and it is a heavily regulated process (for good reason too: they limits how many liens can be strung, and how much of my yard you can dig up, etc.) Speakeasy, Earthlink, Cavtel, etc. could not exist if they had to lay lines: the space to lay them is finite, and the cost is extreme.
Lastly, I have to add that whatever decision is made must apply to power companies, cable companies, and phone companies alike. The issue is not what the lines carry, it is the lines themselves.
My ISP also gives me a static IP, has support guys who understand what I mean when I ask for a reverse DNS entry and doesn't care if I run a server as long as I don't exceed their rather generous bandwidth limit and they don't have to support the box.
Wonder how many of these options I'll have available when the regional telco takes over my DSL line?
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
So, does anyone have an address where we can write to the FCC and weigh in/complain on this issue?
It might not make much difference, but at least the attempt would have been made...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Basically, this puts DSL under the same realm as cable internet. The FCC ruled that Cable did not have to be regulated in this arena and the Supreme Court upheld it. Of course I was severely dissappointed at that decision. For most of the country, there is only one cable provider per region. By not forcing it to be open, it put DSL at a disadvantage. Now the playing field has been leveled, but its not good for consumers. Sure, FTTP promises a lot, but what kind of competition will it have? Ok, so I can choose Satellite (2 companies), cable tv (1 company), or FTTP (1? company) for viewing tv. Long gone are the days of dial-up for most people.
From the business point of view, they're more willing to build the network if they don't have to share it. Perhaps the plan is to get the groundwork laid and then come back and regulate it?
This will hurt users in the short run, as it will reduce competition. In the UK, the incumbent has to give access, and alternative ISPs are falling over themselves to undercut each other and provide better service. This move will clearly reduce choice. Even the Russian market is more open than that proposed by the FCC - the local anti-trust regulator recently won a court case requiring incumbents to give access to alternative DSL providers.
In the long run, though, this will hasten the implementation of Wi-Max and other wireless technologies, possibly by municipalities. These will be used for VoIP, and hey presto, the Baby Bells will be screwed. No doubt they will try to enlist the FCC's help on that too, but they are running out of arguments.
That is a picture of you, and you are inviting garcia to buttfuck you because he got first post and you weren't even close. At least you went down in a blaze of glory.
I thought there was a case in the courts which already ruled that telcos do not have to share their lines with other DSL providers? I tried getting Speakeasy in NYC and was unsuccessful. I waited a long time with no DSL service and in the end went back to Verizon DSL hell.
Think of the new wardriving oppertunities. Instead of a home network here and there and maybe a occational office net with 802.11 wardriving, but with IP over Powerlines, you got access to the whole neibourhood's IP traffic, just by plugging in anyware.
.. plug into any ware and crack into the IP network annonmousely.
Better yet
WarPlugging here we come.
~AC
We definitely don't want IP over power lines. It's a major source of RFI (radio frequency interference) in the short wave (HF & VHF) bands. Emergency and other licensed radio services may be impaired by the spectrum pollution caused by BPL.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/The power company owns the poles (and hates it when people call them telephone poles). Nothing is stopping a company from leasing pole space from the power company to run lines to compete with the phone and cable providers except the extreme cost.
I think it was the creation of competition that lowered the costs for long distance more than anything else. Remember when people used to freak out if you made a long distance call? Nowaways it's cheaper to call someone out of state than it is to call someone on the other side of the county.
I read the internet for the articles.
Actually in most cases the poles are owned by the power company or a 3rd party who leases them to both.
And if you wanted to come in and run your own lines, they'd probably let you. Just pay the same everyone else pays.
I believe the goal of the telecom act of 1996 was to regulate the companies.
If the FCC is going to deregulate DSL as a info service then the phone companies should be required to offer naked DSL. Currently, BellSouth requires all DSL customers to have a full service phone line. Other bells have the naked DSL option.
Reclassification as an information service, hopefully will get rid of the telephone taxes applied to DSL by many phone companies.
I presently have cable but would like to try DSL since it's almost as fast and cheaper, but I refuse to pay the almost 50% (NY & Federal) telephone taxes that would be tacked on for DSL.
Congress needs to get a clue. When they relaxed regulation of utilities my bills went up and service went down. This happens every time because greed will always overcome intelligent business practices.
Congress knows exactly what it is doing, and every congressperson probably understands those consiquences perfectly.
You erroneously assume your "representative" gives a hoot about you, the increast costs you bear, or the inherent unfairness and inaccessiblity of a monopoly marketplace.
They don't. The care far more about the bribes *cough* campaign contributions they receive from the monopolists. What you are witnessing is a positive feedback loop, where the monopolists get ever richer, the rest of us get ever poorer, and the ever richer have ever more money to buy ever more politicians and legislation.
It will not end well, for any of us, and the cyle appears to be too far gone to stop.
But of course, last time I expounded on another set of symptoms of this trend I was accused of advocating armed revolt, when in fact I was expressing fear and concern that such is probably going to happen in our lifetimes, and the hope that I would be elsewhere if and when it does. I expect the amateur right-wing spinmeisters to do the same in this thread, so let me say clearly that, while I think catastrophic failure of our society, politically, economically, and socially is becoming all but inevitable thanks to shit like this (and a thousand other things that have been done over the last few years, some worse, some not as bad, all combining to undermine the basic democratic foundations of our society), I by no means desire this. In fact, quite the opposite--I wish fervently to be wrong and would gladly accept being laughed at over being right about this. Unfortunately, I don't think I am--though I'm sure those currently digging our grave will find a way to blame "Liberals" for the consiquences of their policies just the same (but I digress).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Take alook at the highspeed options in Asia and Europe, monopolies can provide more widely available service, at better speeds.
The same is true of wireless. US wireless is feeble and disorganized compared to other industrial areas. Why? Because there are incentives OTHER than providing service to the customers. Vendors have "screwing your competitors" and "implementing your strategic partner's tech standard" as a non-customer-centric deliverable (eek).
Non profit utility monpolies are a good thing. As an exercise for the reader; Consider health care a utility and compare USA cost/delivery vs. Europe/Canada/Australia/Asian cost/delivery...
Competition isnt all its cracked up to be.
legislation and politicians who don't give a shit about people, and will do anything they can to screw you over? I mean, time and time again, i see how normal people are trampled upon daily by corporations and yet people bend over and drop their pants to the tune of companies cashregisters.
And before anyone starts talking about anti-Americanism etc, I live in this country and see these things on a daily basis. America is the country I know which has the least protection of it's people and the greatest protection of it's corporations. Not only that, but politicians are supporting companies rights to screw people through their actions and bribery. Find a politician not in the pockets of a corporation and you'll see a one-term politician. It's disgusting. I'm all for corporations beeing able to make money and develop, but not at all cost as it is here.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
my 1.5/3.0mbit connection w/static IP im getting for $100 a month will skyrocket to $800 a month, and then I will be forced to cut my connection, and go out of business. All because some fool at Baby bell wants to rake in couple more billion on top of his existing billions.
Thank you FCC.
Go fuck yourself with a baton.
A ton of providers block SMTP and I am glad. The average internet user is just a giant spam relay otherwise. Usually they have a form that you can fill out to unblock it. I have had to do this at a few different locations. Even SBC is relatively reasonable about it. Cable companies are the worst, they tend to think you are some kind of international criminal if you want any kind of outgoing traffic.
I am a Speakeasy customer as of August 1st.
Speakeasy outshines any service provider of any type I have ever dealt with. They are the standard by which all customer service operations should be measured.
No need for PPoE, a static IP, no need for telephone service, a usage policy that doesn't get in my way and no need to waste my life with incompetent and unhelpful service techs.
If you're not using Speakeasy for your Internet service but have the option to, then you are a moron.
W
It's not totalitarianism, it's anti-terrorism; after all, it's for our own protection, right?
No thanks.
I'm sure there's many people here who want choice, since usually that choice gives you better products. There are things you can do to protect your choice.
First, You can write http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html all 4 FCC commissioners and tell them something like this....
It also wouldn't hurt to check out www.cispa.org on occasion. Many of the ISPs there are local to you in one way or another. I highly recommend pulling ANY support you may have away from the companies that want to stiffle independant ISPs just to profit from it. Independants WILL take good care of their customers. Even though they charge a bit more, you won't feel ripped off because they offer value for the service. You would also help prove the point that Independants MUST stay alive.
Cable TV lines were installed by the original company that obtained the contract for your area, whether above or below ground. In some cases, they don't exist any more because they were bought up by the Megacompanies like Adelphia, Time-Warner, Comcast, Cox, or Cablevision.
FiOS is currently a Verizon monopoly. They do not have to open up their fiber lines to competition. Why? A loophole in the law that says, "If you lay a brand new line from the central office to the house, you can keep sole access to yourselves."
No other companies have been allowed to add lines to the poles or underground conduits. We therefore have restricted choices... if there actually are any choices. This type of deregulation would cause more monopolistic behaviors.
The reason DSL failed is because Verizon, PacBell, SBC, and BellSouth have held back on upgrading the infrastructure. And then, if and when they did any upgrades, you ended up with FITL (Fiber in the Loop). In a FITL system, you have to put the DSLAM in the "lightspeed box" in your neighborhood in order to get high speeds. If you put the DSLAM in the central office, you're stuck with IDSL/ISDN (which was also basically killed by the 4 megababy bells, primarily PacBell). Yes, I'm aware there are only 3 now, since PacBell became part of one of the others.
If they're going to deregulate DSL like this, they really need to make the communications infrastructure maintainers and service providers two separate entities, meaning Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth would each end up being split into two companies (six, altogether)... one to provide phone/internet, and one to simply maintain/upgrade the hardware.
OCO is Loco
haha, you must be new around here....
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Not only that, but Verizon flatly refuses to provide DSL service of any kind to this area. You get Comcast Cable or no broadband. But competition will keep the companies in check. Yeah. Right.
> SELECT * FROM MPSC WHERE clue > 0
(yeah, yeah, blatant ripoff, but I'm irked)
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
I use a DSL service that I love. They give me 1.5mbit/384kbit. Maybe it's not blazing speed, but it's fast enough. Ping times are low. The great things: I can run servers on my system. I get a static IP. And I get amazing support.
Exhibit A: I called them up because an installation had gone wrong and I couldn't get online. Wanted to know whose fault it was. Turned out I hadn't released the DHCP properly, and it was waiting to time out, so they reset it on their end - and then I realized I hadn't written down any mirrors for my BSD distribution I was trying to get working, and didn't have any other working computers. So they tracked down a BSD distribution site for me and gave me the URL.
Exhibit B: They have semi-supported IPv6 tunnels (in that the service is available, but is not *officially* supported - unofficially, it is supported.)
Exhibit C: They have a server-side firewall to block incoming ports that tend to be problematical. It's configurable by the end-user. Yes, I have some control over *their firewall* on their end. (One of the options is "off entirely", for the curious.)
How much of that would be preserved with Verizon? Fuck all.
(Addendum: While digging through the config to see what the exact state of IPv6 was, I just realized I can change my reverse DNS entry for my static IP. Through the web interface. With full official support. I love these guys.)
(sonic.net, for the curious.)
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
No kidding. If you remember the past, it becomes apparent that this is nothing more than an attempt to return to their previous behaviour of trying to limit people's speed, so they can charge exhorbitant rates for the least amount of service that they can provide.
Sadly, people seem to have forgotten that the TelCos have fought broadband tooth and nail for YEARS. Anyone who was around in the 1990's might dimly be aware of it. The TelCos explicitly hindered the rollout of ANYTHING which was high-speed, as that would jeopardize their T1 profits.
Anyone remember ISDN? That was their supposeded version of "high-speed". I'm sorry, but 128 Kbps ain't it. And they'd love to go back there, if they could. Don't forget, DSL was a 1980's technology, which only really made it out to the public after Congress opened things up in 1996.
What would instead really open things up again is if people could buy naked copper lines, and run what they wanted to over them. But, by law, you can't.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
This announcment make make my request pointless but here goes:
I have been thinking about starting up a DSL based ISP and obviously need to have a thorough knowledge of the technology and how to implement it. Finding books\papers that really dig into the topic is darn near impossible. I found this book. Does that book cover the topic sufficiently to let you really implement it or do you know of any better/complimentary books?
Please be patient, I'm a work in progress! --Alan Jackson
Deregulation can potentially improve some of these services (provided it is done in a careful and balanced way) by de-integrating the actual monopoly from the elements sold on top of it. In phones, that would mean that one market is maintaining and selling physical phone lines (this one being a natural monopoly and hence tightly regulated to ensure non-discriminatory access), and another is selling voice and data services on these lines. The dergulation of the voice and data services market is what can help - deregulation of the wires and poles market is a disaster in the offing.
Deregulation has to be applied carefully otherwise it can makes things worse. That was a big problem with the rolling power blackouts in California a few years ago. Supposedly CA's power grid was deregulated however wha tit really did was regulate certain parts while removing regulations from others. The generation was separated from transmition, generators couldn't transmit and visa versa. And while end user providers had maximum charges the generators didn't.
Along the lines of the CA blackouts, while there were rolling blackouts there was also a windfarm that was sitting idle. They windfarm didn't have the carrying capacity, cables or powerlines, to transmit all the power it generated.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I am very tempted to go back to over the air TV and 56K dialup. I've seen my cable bill nearly double in 7 years and now with high speed, I'm forking out almost $150/month for a service (TV/Internet) I don't use that much... not to mention the service is not as good as it was 5 years ago. What ever happened to the idea that cable was cheap? What ever happened to the $10/month high speed Internet?? Knowing the direction Comcast is going, I suspect my cable bill will be over $200/month within the next 2 years. In my area, there is no competition! If you want high speed Internet, Comcast is your only choice (no DSL). My housing community has strict rules on dishes so DirecTV is probably not an option either. My question is where is the Federal government here? It seems like there is a strong push to allow all companies to effectively create their own monopolies with all this deregulation that in essence puts their competition out of business.
If you know how to do it that much cheaper than what we're already paying, what are you doing posting SlashDot? Pitch your idea around, create a startup, start building the network, and the customers will flock to you! What is stopping you?
Deregulation at the national level makes sense. Get government out of it. nIf it was true dereg, it would let us focus on the real issue: too much government involvement.
People fear an SBC/Comcast monopoly. In a true free market, monopolies don't exist. Only authorities can enforce them. That's where your local government finds the blame.
SBC is given monopoly-rights through your local government. End that. Let anyone pay to run their lines. Twisted pair, coax, fiber, whatever. The infrastructure cost is huge, but it'll be offered to large businesses first. Then to smaller. Then to households.
I'm nearly 100% wireless myself. GPRS with my server-side compression is a dream. I'm posting from my h6315 right now. It's perfect. No Spyware, no IE, no concern for D/L speeds -- just information when I need it. Take DSL/cable/T1 monopolies and stick them in your cornholes. 28.8k wireless is all I ever need.
Keep craving high speed for whatever reason (porn, warez, music). I get all that through buying it and saving the headaches. I say deregulate federally, and then focus on local deregulation, too. DSL and cable are 100% tax supported when you see what local support is needed to keep the infrastructure going. I'm sick of it. I save $1000+/year by avoiding it. You keep debating a dead debate -- deregulate in one area and 700 other regulations pop up. Re-regulate and taxes/fees go up.
I'm done with it. Wired is dead for me. I'm paying $60/month for unlimited calls, data, and I have WiFi on my phone if I desperately need it (used it once). No desktop, no laptop, no need for your tax-funded, government-enforced monopoly.
While it might seem that this is creating a monopoly for the Baby Bells, it is actually a move designed to create even competition for the cable companies that already have a competitive advantage in this space. Now that companies like SBC are able to offer more products like Satellite TV (through Dish Network) and unlimited long distance, it has had a dramatic impact on the pricing for those services, and is just now forcing the cable companies to offer better rates on those services. This is a fair move that will benefit the consumer. How fair is it to allow other companies to lease the telcos' lines when they don't have to participate in maintaining or fixing those lines? Nobody's going to invest in additional network buildout if other companies are going to reap the profits. That's bad news for everybody.
Okay- say what you will about deregulation, whatever. The issue to me, is that these lines are on public property, and in public airspace... Would another company be allowed to build poles and run lines right next the current lines? If not, it seems that the phone companies should have to share/lease them out at a fair price.
So long as the cable company is also required to share at a fair price. The main problem right now is that cable internet is classified differently from DSL. Yet not much difference. Either way, treat them the same.
That said, a "fair price" is often up for debate. Is it "at cost"? Is it "at cost" plus "maintenance", is it "at cost" plus "maintenance" plus enough to recoup the initial investment and make some money off of it? It is a very gray area in most situations.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
In dense population areas would it not be easy to setup mesh networking and have a few people have connections to the Internet? I live in a community where we do this now. People deeper in my subdivision can't get any highspeed access. A few of us near the main road are just on the fringes and can get highspeed access. We have the access points and supply signal to others. Before you complain about bandwidth know that most of the people are not IT guru's that need 10MB/s. Most are home users that like a faster connection than 56K.
Instead of everyone complaining about how "big bad business" is killing your services do something about it. I am sure if you got enough tech savvy people together and went out petitioning neighbors you could get something like this going in your town.
Just my $0.02.
Nothing is impossible. It just hasn't been figured out yet.
Add me to the list of people who wouldn't leave Speakeasy if someone payed me to do so.
Their prices really aren't that much higher than the same speed level from the telco's, and the quality of service isn't even on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark.
If Speakeasy was suddenly unable to provide my DSL, my answer would certainly NOT be to go to SBC.
SBC would lose money on the deal in my case, and (I suspect) in many many other cases.
this is no different from the cable companies. They all ought to be treated the same. However, I think both should be open and not closed.
If SBC was a person, he would run for president on the republican ticket.
I still have to deal with the local evil overlords at Gulftel. They have decent speed but under continuous usage they disconnect you. They have remote administration on the modems and they have all ports firewalled so you can't do anything with it. What is the point of SDSL (1.1Mb down and up) if I can't host anything behind the firewall and can't download large files (they block bittorrent and disconnect you during large downloads). They are also the only ISP in the area.
Shouldn't they be more worried about this type of thing?
Last Post!
More in reply to cries of "Monopoly!" I'd like to add that when the variety of broadband connections exist in todays day and age, giving a telco exlusive rights to the network that they built, maintain, and provide upkeep on, is no less fair than letting the cable companies continue on in their relatively unchallenged push into every household with their increasingly higher priced offerings. Telco's represent some of the lowest priced broadband available. So for those that decry the "monopoly", go pay the cable company for a higher priced, loosely serviced broadband. Another point to make is the latest news about Vonage making attempts at a 30 Mile Wi-Fi network. Who says competition isn't creating new technologies? Go find yourself a broadband service that you like and stick with it. But stop issuing the normal psychobabble with words like "monopoly" that are supposed to make the rest of the consumer world take notice. You cloud the issues with your big words, only to leave out the most important points of all. COMPETITION IS ALIVE AND WELL. Lest you refuse to do your own research.
Remember the Supreme Court ruled that property can be given to another, even rich private businesses as long as it is for the public (and their profit) good. So there really is no 'public' property where the use is for all. It is all private or leased. As far as the network, it doesn't matter where it is physically, it is who's money was used to build the lines. Roads are build by taxes and government paid labor and therefore public. The telcos paid the cost of building the lines with their people. Also it would be government that says other poles (pipes) can be laid not the telco's, so the government is creating the unfair situation not the company.
Why don't they allow competition ... sigh, each and every day, in every way, we become more Soviet Amerika, or some kind of fiefdom.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I keeid... I keeid. Well, mostly.
Honestly, why would anyone be using slower DSL service in areas where cable internet is available? Having been forced to use it a few times over the years I now count my blessings everyday for cable internet. I am pulling 5mb down and 2mb up and all I need is a good firewall router (yes, they do exist, more than enough power and features for a home user) to keep things safe. I can understand using DSL in areas where cable internet isn't available, but otherwise???
What do you mean, Goodbye Earthlink and Speakeasy? We live in a free market. They can still lease the lines or put in their own copper.
There really is a good "in the middle" solution for STMP traffic, but almost no ISP seems to get it. Block port 25, outbound, by default. But, if a customer asks for it, open port 25 for them and just monitor traffic volume. If they are pushing a large amount of data through port 25, cut it off and contact them and ask them to explain, otherwise, just stay out of their way.
This is what worries me about this decision, I currently have a great ISP (DSL Extreme), they let me have a server, and a static IP address. I would be on a 6Mbps/308Kbps line, if the lines to my home weren't crap, stuck at 768Kbps/128Kbps. And at around US$50 a month, the price is just fine with me. When this goes though, and I've no doubt it will, the FCC is bad that way, I expect to see my ISP go under and I'll be forced to choose between Verizon, blech!!, or go over to cable and give up my satellite TV. Either way, I won't be able to run my own server, as I do now. Someone remind me why we have the FCC again?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
But that isn't because of competition, it's because of a lack of standards. In fact, we can pretty fairly blame the problem on a LACK of government interference. Compare to Europe, where there is MORE competition among cell phone companies and carriers, the customers are more happy, and the technology has advanced further-- and the reason why is because the government stepped in and dictated a cell phone standard rather than allowing the cell phone companies to define their own.
What you say may be reasonable, but you have to understand that it doesn't have much to do with the parent you're responding to; the parent is saying the government should interfere if necessary to cause competition. You seem to be saying (maybe unintentionally) in response that other countries haven't interfered to protect competition and that's better. I say they have-- the actions by european governments to dictate cell phone standards have BEEN a form of interference to protect competition, since the incompatible standards the different cell phone companies have created are being used as a form of market lock-out.
Businesses in the US are based on the Randian corporate model, and are inherent liars and thieves
I don't know how you can say Ayn Rand supported liars and thieves as she stood against violence, coercion, fraud. What she did believe in were voluntary exchanges.
Falcon
And no I'm not a Randian, I'm closer to the two Thomas's, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Actually I can't say that for sure as I don't know much about Rand though I know she deplored violence. I've thought of reading some of her books but all I did was to start reading "The Fountainhead" though I didn't finish it.Should there be a Law?
Just wanted to mention that DSL in the hands of a good (non-telco) ISP can be the greatest thing ever, too -- depends on the ISP.
I've had the same ISP for years, for instance, and I get over 2400 down/430 up, five static IPs, the ability to run my own mail server (they block port 25 on everyone to prevent spam, unless you say "can I have port 25 open?" and they'll open it up and just check to make sure you're not an open relay every so often), amazing customer service (2 in the morning, someone picks up the phone) and so on.
Cable could touch the speeds, and perhaps provide a better price, but static IPs, servers allowed, great customer service and proactive open relay prevention? Never seen it anywhere else, DSL or cable.
And if this ruling goes through, it's over,because telco DSL doesn't offer that either. Sigh.
Man, I bet hanging out with you would give me constant heartburn over how much of a bitch you are. I can tell just from your writing style.
Nothing is worse than a bitchy man.
If they are classified as 'information service' do they lose their 'common carrier' status?
If so, that could open them up to having to regulate content, and produce activity monitoring records.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
NEWS FLASH
The FCC just ruled FOR the deregulation of DSL. Takes affect in 270 days.
I work for a small ISP in Fairfax, VA and this move puts our business in immediate jeopardy. My company is part of a lobbying group called the Washington Bureau of ISP Advocacy (WBIA). There are tons of useful links on their website such as how to contact your local senators and how to contact the FCC directly.
http://www.wbia.us/
Please visit and write your local and federal represenatives and tell them that you want the freedom of choice!
McLeod has Fiber running 150 feet from my house along County Rd 46. I don't have access to those lines and they are likely sharing the "public space".
So why are they being treated differently? If we are going to regulate/deregulate due to public space I want access to that Fiber.
The EU regulations, which are pretty sane, have a simple distinction. Run a network open to the public and you get regulated, but you get unparalleled access to public lands. Run a private network and you're at the mercy of local government collecting huge amounts of money for a permit.
And here's the rub; if you run a public network (such as cable, dsl, etc. for IP, telephony, even pagers) you're regulated by your friendly national telco watchdog, who insist on calling everyone who has more than 25% of a market's share a monopolist (DSL being 1 market, cable being 1 market, etc.), which gives them the option to force you to bring your prices down to cost+a reasonable profit.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Allowing a DSL monopoly would be a terrible thing. I'm a lucky customer of the Charter cable monopoly in St. Louis. The service downright sucks. I have 3 mbit download, but my upload isn't even 300 kbit. The tech "support" representatives probably don't know what a computer is, and any time you call, they will tell you to turn off the modem, unplug it, turn off the router, turn off the computer, plug in the modem, turn on the router, turn on the computer and expect it to work. Which it never does. After that, they set up a service call and tell me a tech isn't available for 2 weeks and when they are, they'll show up sometime between 8 AM and 5 PM, and every time I set up a tech appointment, at 4:59, they're ringing the doorbell. I spend more time on hold when I call than I do arguing with the moron at the other end that the fact I do not use Windows is NOT the cause of my problem. Hell, my connection was down this morning, it just came back online a few minutes ago. And I have friends in other parts of the US that pay less than I do for faster speeds.
But what incentive does Charter have for providing cheaper, better service? None. Because even if DSL was available at my house (I'm like half a mile too far away) my choice would be to cancel cable and switch to SBC DSL and pay even more for even less, or cancel cable and switch to dial up. They know that if I want broadband, which I do, I have no choice but to use them. If there was at least one more cable company for me to choose from, then Charter and the other one would be fighting for my business, and I'd get the good service that, I, as a paying customer, am entitled to. But, until then, I'll continue to pay for sub-par service just so I can download music and porn faster.
And I don't even have much of an option for TV. Sure, theres DirecTV and the other satellite companies, but if internet is my only service from Charter, then they tack even more onto the bill since I'm not a cable TV customer. Well, at least the TV doesn't go out as often as the cable does.
Of course, there is good news. We just had an election in which approval was given to our local city owned utility company to lay fiber to the home. Needless to say, BellSouth fought this hard and, having lost, keep sueing the utility company. I believe that more people should complain to the FCC etc. to get such abuse of monopolies stopped, and to prevent proposals such as the one under discussion here from even being considered.
yeah like the topic says
thanks mods
Mainly, Speakeasy seem to be the only ones with reasonable policies. I was discussing this recently with a group of people in my area. One guy had his ISP (Verizon) disable his connection. It turn out this was because he'd setup a web server on his computer. They apparently don't block port 80, but they do monitor it and disable your connection if there's too much traffic on that port. A long discussion ensued about which provider he might switch to, but every one that was suggested also doesn't allow you to run a server on a standard home connection you have to . They all want you to buy some more expensive business package just to use your interenet connection as a, you know, fully functional internet connection. Someone even suggested Verizon's new fiber (FIOS) connection, but, guess what, running a server on that is also a violation of the TOS. Apparently you can have plenty of bandwidth, you just can't really use it.
Then of course there are the ISPs with caps on the amount of data you transfer, or the ones who want to charge you for each computer connected. I guess it has really looked to me that Speakeasy is the only ISP that treats its customers reasonably. Compitition between cable and phone companies won't help, since each has similarly customer unfriendly policies. Competition between 2 or 3 perimenant entities is really not sufficient.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
It depends on where you live. Some places the power company owns the poles. In other places the telephone companies own them. Then there are the distribution companies. They just own the poles and right-of-ways and don't make either electricity or dial tone. Regardless of who owns them they are almost always part of a regulated utility monopoly, and therefore come under the controls of the PUC in your state, and they don't want the poles to become overloaded. Either technically or visually. There are regulations on how many cables can be on the poles or burried in the right-of-way. There are regulations on how close they can be. So, when it's all said and done, most places it is almost impossible to get cable for new technologies run, so forget competing technologies. Why in the world do you think municipal wireless initiatives are getting so much push? No cost for wiring IS a factor, but a lot of places they simply CAN'T run the wire.
The lines were mostly put in when the telcos (ILECs) were monopolies allowed to charge the public whatever they needed to make a profit while providing universal access. They were essentially publicly funded and the telcos long ago were repaid what they invested. The telcos have no legitimate claim to excusive private ownnersip and control of the phone lines.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Your housing association's rules regarding antennas and dishes must be compliance with Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
R ef28770286
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/info.aspx?page=FAQ#_
That only solves part of your problem, but every little bit helps right...
This sig has been licensed by above for use in accordance with Patent: 1,678,976,543.
Take away the indy DSL provider, and you'll find that you can't host a server cheaply. This is something that benefits both big business and a government looking to constrain your rights.
Look, my ISP, the excellent Pilosoft in NYC, pays MORE for the line that they lease from Verizon that I would as a direct consumer.
So in other words, my neighbor, who is happy with Verizon's standard crap, pays $19.99/month. I pay $50 for the same thing (well, the same speeds, but with no crap). Verizon gets more than $20 a month for the line, and Pilosoft makes a few bucks, and everyone's happy.
Why is the FCC going to take this away? If anything, Verizon is making more money on me than on my neighbor!
This is about monopoly and a way for the US Gov to further drive the price of free speech and doing business up.
jh
The reason for USA's mobile phone chaos is the lack of common standards and towers. Each competitor had to build its own network from scratch, with separate technologies. So you end up with many areas getting spotty coverage while urban centers are blasted by 3x more RF than you would need if everyone were on the same network, as is done in the rest of the first world.
The FCC wants to push DSL into the same situation. Potential competitors would have to run their own wires, hugely expensive and a redundant waste of copper.
The best situation for end users is competing SERVICE providers on shared infrastructure. The best situation for corporate interests is rather a lot like what we have in the USA.
If you're a CLEC, you do have access to such things under UNE provisions, however the FCC has been meddling in that too.
This probably won't be the end of third-party DSL, just the end of CHEAP third-party DSL.
CLECs can still co-locate their DSLAMs in incumbent COs and lease last-mile loops to their customers, and provide their own DSL.
Smaller ISPs, like VISI which the grandparent mentions, will be greatly affected. Right now they are re-selling the Qwest/Frontier DSL product offerings. If this is re-classified by the FCC, Qwest and Frontier will cut them out and their DSL business will evaporate overnight.
This is a shame because, as many of you probably know, smaller ISPs are great for support and customized solutions for SMB and home customers.
Earthlink and Speakeasy could concievably offer their own DSL product as a CLEC, if that's not what they're already doing anyway.
"So the telcos would get what they want, which is no competition while the consumers get screwed"
Everytime major service providers like phone, electricity, water, is deregulated it is great for Businesses, and sucks for the consumer...
To see this all you have to do is look at the current monopolies like california power (PG&E) and cable providers (Comcast) ever since these 2 were deregulated, customers had to paid more for the same service and the companes accountablity wen't from "some" to "none".
I've been using DSL since 2002 once it became available where I live. Only cable company here, Time-Warner, tried to screw me over after I cancelled their TV service a few years ago. I dropped them and switched to Dish Network because they kept raising their prices, and I had to "fight" with them for months afterward because they kept billing me for service after they disconnected me. Ended up contacting the Better Business Bureau after getting a bill from a collection agency sent by Time Warner. After that, Time Warner FINALLY stopped billing and cancelled the collection notice. For that reason, I will NEVER do any business with Time Warner Cable again. I would go back to dial-up first!
"A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
If big DSL provider and big cable provider are locked in a dead heat battle, DSL provider can gain a competitive edge by opening up their DSL lines to third party ISPs.
Why? Because, in NYC, there is absolutely no way in hell I will ever pick Verizon when I can pick Time Warner Cable. But I just may also pick AceDSL. Little guy gets the business, and Verizon would gladly take 50% of DSL fee instead of 100% of no DSL fee or 0% of cable fee.
So, does anyone have an address where we can write to the FCC and weigh in/complain on this issue?
Just make sure to write the complaint on the back of a $1,000 "campaign contribution" check made out to the republican party.
Never works like that.
Double standards are part of having a shitty government. They will say, "You want to build here? Ok, we'll give each of these people $5,000 to 'git." to a big developer. If you're a startup or some average citizen, they'll say something like, "And make all those people move out? It would cost so much to fairly compensate them, and they would be resistant to moving! Those houses and folks are old, let them be."
Consequently, if I said someone was violating my copyright for a song, I'd be laughed at and no one would do anything about it. But when the RIAA says it, the fucking FBI is beating on people's doors!
You'll get access to that fiber line when they can profit from you having access to it, and more than pay for their original costs of bringing it into the area.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Can a state require that the lines be shared, or is the only regulation of this at the federal level now?
My DSL ISP is a big fish in a small pond, using in my case a Verizon line - where Verizon doesn't even offer DSL as an option. So it looks like under this ruling (which I see elsewhere they've now put into effect) Verizon can shut my DSL down, force me to dial-up, and cripple my broadband-dependent business.
So can my state legislature stop them if it wants to? I imagine they will if they can; I'm not the only small business threatened by this obscene ruling.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Thank you ignorant americans everywhere!
I'm not sure how someone buying DSL from the telco and selling it to you counts as "competition".
Competition is what you get when you've got multiple vendors selling comparable services. Cable is in competition with DSL. Someone buying DSL from SBC is not in competition with SBC, they're in competition with the other people buying DSL from SBC.
The whole telco deregulation effort has been a process of creating one illusion of some imaginary competitive market after another. If there's effective competition for the telco, great. If there isn't, it should be a regulated monopoly.
Once the phone company is the only one to provide service what is to prevent them from controlling what sites and services can be accessed?
Actions by the FBI and the like are also less likely to be resisted when there is only one provider that needs to keep on the good side of the government.
-- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Panoramas, Photoshop Tips and Musings on Society
No more considerations needed... It's already happened
US FCC eases regulations on DSL broadband
Speakeasy is by FAR the best/fastest broadband service in central VA.
of course, I'm 2 blocks from the CO so that may be a major reason why my DSL is far faster than cable, but not even Verizon offers the DSL packages here that Speakeasy does!
the history of the world
Depends where you are I guess. I've had DSL since basically the first ISP moved in town, which started at 30 but quickly balloned to $60 for 256 SDSL. Yuck. Still better than dialup, though.
These days, Comcast is $50 a month, and Verizon DSL is $30 for 3000/768. In fact, the price recently went down from $40 to $30!
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Looks as if the deed is done. Any guesses as to what we see from here? My personal guess is that the repercussions of this ill-advised decision will vary market by market, ILEC by ILEC, but that the fallout in some markets could be swift and painful. Furthermore, I have no numbers or inside knowledge, but would fear that loss of even a few major markets might be sufficient to pull Covad under altogether.
Anyone gotten Verizon's Fiber Optic FIOS service and noticed how they cut your old copper loop as soon as the fiber works. Nice of them to destroy tax payer funded infrastructure like that and remove any threat of DSL competition.
Oh, I'm sure they'll tell you that it's to protect you from lightning coming in the old copper loop (like it couldn't for the last 100 years?), or something like that.
Hey, this is the conservative effective mantra, right? Right. Big profits for the big guys, who happen to fund most of the conservative politician (and quite a few non-conservative ones too). But since the late 60s/early 70s, this has been the trend and what a horrible unjust trend it is too. Anything standing up for individual rights just ain't in the cards. Anything for corporate right is. This is one of the fights progressives have. Stop helping the rich and powerful and help the little guy. They are the ones that need it after all. Not the Bushs and Cheneys of the world. But the regular mom and dads who don't make much. Even the real mom and dad (comparitively) businesses don't get helped but the big, really big ones do. And by lotsa over-favorable legislation, like this. So, to prevent this type of horrible abuse of what should be something of primarily public ownership, we need to take back the government from those fascists currently running it and pub laws and restrictions back in place that stop this type of thing from happening.
This is a *terrible* thing for consumers. I'm a customer of a smaller ISP (I actually used to be a customer of BrandX -- the company referred to in the artcile) and have found their prices and service offerings *FAR* superior to the bells.
At my last company, our "bell" DSL line was extremely unreliable compared to the "local ISP" line we installed.
The bells are using lines financed by our tax dollars. They have a monopoly on the lines because of this. They shouldn't have a monopoly on Internet service over DSL lines as well!
Are there any organized letter writing campaigns going on???
Evolution: love it or leave it
The real problem here are 2 fold.
The first is the fcc is regulating one of the outfits (DSL), but ignoring the others(cable, wifi, etc). The best thing that can happen is to dereg and allow the phone company to compete against the other.
The second problem is that we allow an unnatural monopoly to be extended to providers in each space (cable or dsl). IMHO, the piece of reg that we should pass is to bar a monopoly after x years of service (say 5 years). After that, the gov. has to allow free enterprise to take hold. But I do think that this admin will implement the 2'nd part of this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
here in Richmond, cable is at best 2 down/1 up whereas my Speakeasy DSL is 6/6!
so, tell me again how cable is faster than DSL.
also, I refuse to "install software" to let me have a net connection. all you should have to do is plug in a ethernet cable into the NIC and renew the IP and voila, you're connected.
the history of the world
The only reason true monopolies exist is because the government steps in and regulates. Anyone with even a minute grasp of economics knows this.
I work for a relatively small ISP in Montana. There is only one DSL circuit provider here, Qwest. We resell their product. What we essentially sell is much better customer service to our customers. Almost all of our customers have complained about Qwest's customer service performance in one capacity or another (billing, tech support). They like calling us because we answer the phone quickly and we speak easy-to-understand English.
If Qwest strongarms us we will most certainly go out of business and our customers will have to go to Qwest or cable and their service level.
"However, if the government can provide a service more cheaply, and with good enough quality, then why not have it do so?"
Because it's morally wrong! If the government does, er, something, that's the first step towards totalitarianism! Because corporations are good, and the government is bad!
The first one of those is especially hard to believe, but the conservatives you mention seem to see it that way.
Here in Ames, IA if you want cable, Mediacom is the only choice, and if you want DSL you have to get Qwest (or someone who has leased qwest's lines).
There are wireless alternatives to internet and satellite for TV so we're not completely screwed, but still yeah, more or less zero competition.
The issue to me, is that these lines are on public property, and in public airspace... Would another company be allowed to build poles and run lines right next the current lines?
The problem is this requires lots of inital investment and with you being the new guy in town, getting customers away from the incombant is tough.
There's a company called RCN that did just that. Ran a separate fiber/coax network over areas that already had existing ones (Adelphia, Comcast, TW are the existing companies in their space). The company was in bankruptcy court a year or so ago, because they were unable to keep up on the debts they incurred from building the network (not enough customres had signed on to cover the costs). But they seem to be making process to getting out of it after some restructuring.
As one marketting manager of a broadband company told me recently, it's actually cheaper to buy an ISP than start a new one. This is why nobody is making their own infastructure.
what do you mean exactly by business services? A fractional T-1, or what? I am in the opposite end of the country from you, but have checked with them many times, can't get any dsl here with them or anyone else, BUT, I pay so much for a landline and two isps that perhaps a "business service" might be doable. The satellite guys (last I checked) were windows only, so ta heck with them, but I'd sure like something else besides popping for a phone I don't use and slow dialup. I'd *love* to be able to use speakeasy somehow.
Oh the FCC wants to deregulate DSL. Considering my experience over the last few weeks of trying to find a provider that offers a static IP address, it doesn't even matter if they even change the rules.
Keep in mind that I've been a DSL customer since 2001 with Verizon providing the copper, and using my university as the ISP (and who was kind enough to provide a static IP). Things for the most part were good with the exception of the previous year, and running into poor line speed due to living the maximal distance from the CO, and also experiencing the DSLAM fingerpointing. Recently, however, I moved to a new place where the cable option was an internal provider whose idea of static IP was opening up ports on their NAT box, and since this was internal competition is out of the question. Then there's DSL. I originally tried to go the speakeasy route to find out that my line isn't available for leasing to them. The end result is going in with a business DSL service (and paying over $120 / mo.) just for a single static IP address and a one year lock!
And for those naysayers who are wondering why I just don't go back to the unviersity, the reason being that I also do some consulting that doesn't constitue university business, and is somewhat frowned upon. Also, there's their IP (intellectual property) agreement such that anything developed using university resources (including the ISP) belongs to them.
Because corporations are good, and the government is bad!
I trust government little more than I do corporations, however by it's very nature it's government that needs to be monitored the closest. Afterall government has the force of arms.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Verizon is phasing out DSL in my neighborhood in Westchester County, and will be starting to drag FIOS to our houses next month (rates 5-30mb/sec) for the same price as DSL, as well as the ability to have 4 digital phone lines. I live at the extreme end of DSL, so get 768 (but since my cable line is currently run across my back yard (draped over the fence for over a year despite many calls) by the idiots at Cablevision, I wouldn't trust them with my data.
This is a bad development for me. I've used a small, local DSL company for the past 2 years. They've had some DNS issues but the service has been very reliable. They have sensible terms of service. I like 'em and I'll stay with them unless compelled to switch.
From mid-2000 until mid-2003, we used Roadrunner. It was rock solid for a year, then we began to experience packet loss. It was attributed to "signal" levels. They replaced the splitter one time. That fixed the problem for a few months. Then it came back. The next time, they replaced the cable to the street with RJ-6. That fixed it for awhile. Later, the packet loss returned. They did something to the distribution amplifier to clear up that bout. There were several similar packet loss outages which were resolved by fixing the distribution amplifier. Then in summer of 2003, packet loss reared it's head which they were unable to resolve. I couldn't ssh to a remote machine. After a month of getting the runaround, I gave up and switched to a local DSL provider.
If this change is made, my choice will be either try Roadrunner again and see whether they've fixed the problems in my area or switch to Bellsouth. VPN was pretty flaky with Roadrunner even before the horrendous packet loss problems. If I can't get a good enough connection to use it, I'll have to work from the office on nights and weekends just like old times.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
My DSL service is through Qwest, but not the MSN service. Qwest is the ISP and the carrier. 1.5Mb down, 768Kb up, no hassles about servers of any kind. Blocks of 5 static IPs are $15 a month extra if you want 'em. I pay $65 a month. Tech support is excellent, the call center appears to be 24/7 in Phoenix, AZ. I've called a few times, never had any hassles about running Linux or Solaris, no problem that one of the machines is a Sun Blade 1000, no trouble about the network.
I was customer number 5 in the Boise area when they rolled DSL out in 1998. The level of customer service has been constant and the price has gone down while the speed has gone up. Since DSL competes very aggressively with cable here, this is probably a non-issue for me.
-h-
I'm also a relatively happy customer of Speakeasy, but my major gripe with them is a direct effect of their current lack of influence: they can't improve line quality. SBC can, at their discretion, switch you to a closer central office (CO). Speakeasy (via Covad) is unable to do this, so I've been stuck on a crappy line for over three years now (its "length" varies from 13K to 18K feet, according to MLTs). Switching to OneLink (dry copper) helped a bit since the SBC tech didn't realize I wasn't going to be an SBC voice customer. However, all he did was take up some extra line, reducing the distance a couple thousand feet. I can only wonder what might've happened if he had mistakenly thought he was provisioning an SBC DSL circuit.
And yet, I refuse to switch. Anything's better than dropping another dollar in SBC's or Comcast's corporate coffers.
SBC lives by the letter of the [current] law. They won't take any action to improve the service of CLEC customers, and the CLECs can't even pay for anything better. Ideally, I would happily foot the cost of re-running the circuit if I had that option, but that doesn't even figure into their grand plan. I fail to see how anything positive can come out of these new changes; this is effectively a blank check to abuse CLECs to the point of bankruptcy.
-Scott Hutton
The real problem being the local legal monopoly on phone service.
"Deregulating" DSL is pointless if the phone companies continue to have regional legal monopolies. The only competition is Cable because Cable is the only competition by law.
The wireless systems are overlaying the physical wire systems, but again they are limited by law to a single provider in any given area.
Competition is being selected not by customers, not by technology, but by the bureaucrats and politicians who decide who may occupy the last mile.
No wonder it's a nightmare of lousy service, this is just an example of trying to get IP services from the DMV.
Deregulate without actually removing the regulations is a contradiction in terms, and leads to things like California power shortages.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Man I hate British Telecom at the best of times! They only get numerous cases for preferential treatment filed against them every week. This would be disasterous.
People who choose to live in rural areas shouldn't force those who live in denser-populated areas to subsidize their telecomunication services. End of story.
I don't mean to come off as uncaring, but, one shouldn't expect to get, for example, 1.5/512 for $45 when the cost to actually provide that service is substantially higher than in even a small-ish city. The only way to help reduce rates is to raise the rates for city-dwellers or establishing some sort of rural broadband tax... which is complete bullshit.
I really don't get how some who live in rural areas expect cheap bandwidth in places where houses are spread so far apart that it makes laying the infastructure prohibitively expensive. There's a reason why WiMax and other wireless broadband initiatives are being looked at... connecting Backwoods America to the 'Net is one of them.
Still, if you're living in BFN America and really want to see change in your local community, talk to your local public utilities commission and get your friends involved. Depending on the area and topography, good things may happen. But, if you can't round up the support... you're probably better off moving because the lack of demand would be yet another obstacle to overcome.
Bottom line -- if you live in rural America, please don't expect to get cheap Internet. Hell, tell your local congress critter to chop a couple hundred million off the DoD's budget to help with rural broadband infrastructure.
Tell the FCC commissioners what you think:
. Copps@fcc.gov;Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
KJMWEB@fcc.gov;Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov;Michael
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
Evolution: love it or leave it
DSL beats Cable here hands down on speed, service and price! I go through bell-south and they offer 3mbs down at $45 per month. They have some packages as low as $19.95 per month. The cable company (cox)here charges $40 per month and is often EXTREMELY slow. Most of the time its around 1.5mb down. I'm happy with my DSL. I don't think this would affect me much where I'm living now, but I see how it could be bad for areas with lots of competition.
I've been with Speakeasy ever since Telocity bit the dust. They seem pretty high to me, but when I look into other options, I realize they really aren't. What's outrageous is that they're ALL ludicrously high, when compared to service in some Asian countries. And especially when compared to muni wifi, which the telcos are assiduously making illegal via their polihos.
The service is excellent. The techs know what they're doing, and they don't start getting weird if you're not using Windows. The biggest problem I've had is that they stop billing me when I get a new credit card to replace one that expired. That took months to work out the last time it happened.
So, in other words, I'm complaining that they wouldn't take my money. Yeah. I'm crazy.
ftw.
the Political Inquirer
Would another company be allowed to build poles and run lines right next the current lines? If not, it seems that the phone companies should have to share/lease them out at a fair price.
This isn't about the poles or the lines. It's about the DSLAM. But the answer is yes and yes...as long as the other company is a CLEC. They can lease the lines as unbundled network elements, and then they can install their own DSLAM and provide ADSL.
That said, it's outrageously expensive for any CLEC to try to put their own equipment in right alongside the ILEC's, and they'll be starting from way, way, way behind if they do. I don't think there's any question here that this just murdered every small ADSL provider overnight. Including the one I work for.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Oh, I forgot to mention....this is no longer speculation. I'm holding the FCC press release spelling my doom right now. It's official.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
...markets are served by multiple broadband vendors (Cable, Satellite, wireless, fiber)
Multiple vendors? Cable, check; Satellite--nobody who has other options uses satellite, performance doesn't compare to DSL or cable. It's OK if there's no other options (out in the sticks), but it's not a "competitor". Wireless--not available where I live, probably not in most places. If you live in Philadelphia, you're lucky--boy, never thought I'd say that! Fiber--you've got to be kidding, you can get fiber to your door for less than a king's ransom?
Face it, in 90% of America it's cable or DSL, which makes a duopoly, a far cry from a free market, which is why it's grossly over priced.
I see Wimax as our only hope for breaking this up, but I'm sure Comcast & Co. will bribe our legislatures to either outlaw it or give them an exclusive monopoly on it.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Sure, cable companies lay cable down through large distances of public property. Hance why you need to contact the cable company before you dig. Same with telephone cables. The only difference to this point was that where cable companies had full control over their lines, the telcos were forced to share theirs. Well the cable companies formed a mini-cartel in honest truth where they have a "common understanding" in certain areas. That's why you don't see too many overlapping providers. With phone companies you have large companies that have to spend their money on upkeep as well as the actual cable yet they are forced to give reasonable leasing options to their compatitors. I say if you are going to force telcos to open their lines, than force the cable company to do the same. You have to even out the playing field here. Hopefully next they will look at the phone tax that fcc puts on your bill, and either eliminiate it or enforce it on voip, otherwise you have company a (cable; pays $0 to fcc for line charge, 911, and all the other bs; well you pay for 911 now) and company b(telco; where you get taxed for the land line you're using by uncle sam). Crippling one industry (telco) in favor of another (cable) is just pure bullshit.
It starts with them reclassifing DSL as an information service. The telcos go nutz, cut everyoen else off from the lines and crank up the rates until everyone complains. Then they push to get legislation passed saying that they can regulate information services.
Can you imagine the power of a company that could regulate information services? THAT's the truly scary part of this news.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Verizon Biz DSL = servers ok, 768k upstream, no outages
Insight BB cable = servers banned, 384k upstream, once or twice monthly outages
You never were in the territory served? by Mountain Bell/U.S. West/Quest. I think that covers all the mutations. This is the baby bell sued by 7 of the 11 states it served for "lack of service" and the states won. The company laid off 60% of it's work force over 4 years (not managment bloat but people who did real work) and got sued because it took 8 to 16 weeks to get a phone installed. Most of the states had a 21 - 30 day law.
In that same region the Board of El Paso Electric spent several million remodelling their meeting room while the company became the third utillity to go bankrupt since the 30's depression.
Uncontrolled deregulation is a recipe for disaster. After all, the one variable that no economist aknoledges because it invalidates all theories is human greed. It must be placed at more than 90% to be an acurate variable.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Are you complaining that you have a choice? Gosh I thought that was the whole point. Seems to me that it is exactly what everyone is after. Moreover, if the forced raping of the customer base isn't eliminated by the relaxing of the DSL rules, we will be facing a monopoly, cable. Cable will survive, because they don't have to play by the same rules, will telcos will suffer, because they are forced to resell their services at a cosst lower than what they can charge users directly. I don't see where the problem is. If we want competition, we have to allow both players to play the game with the same set of rules.
As far as living outside the bounds of service, that is a small percentage of the potential customer base as the vast majority of the populace lives well within the service areas of both DSL and cable. Perhaps that will take care of itself too, if the playing filed is actually leveled. Both parties will have to compete with much more vigor for each potential customer, including those currently out of the service area.
Don't even get me started about Earthlink or - God forbid - America Online.
This sig no verb.
cable is better than dsl? are you kidding me slow dsl is way better than cable just because telco providers have better access to the backbones
I work for a small ISP in Fairfax, VA and this move puts our business in immediate jeopardy.
Well maybe you should stop leeching from other company's networks, offering a custom home page and some lame "anti spyware solution" for a huge mark-up and profit -- and go build your own damn network infrastructure.
Oh lord, won't you buy a ricochet modem http://www.ricochet.com/
My friends are all wired, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from the Feds.
So lord, won't you buy me a ricochet modem....
> The power company owns the poles (and hates it when people call them
> telephone poles).
Maybe where you live. In my neighborhood, the power lines are on a completely separate set of poles from the phone lines. The power lines run along Payne Ave and approach my house from the front; the telephone lines run along Gill and approach my house from the back side, via a pole at the intersection of two unnamed minor streets ("alleys"). When the power goes out due to a line or pole being down, we still have phone service, and vice versa.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I have to say that the next few months are going to be interesting. We will see how al this is going to play out. Those offshore phone support techs are going to loose their jobs when internet service provides start to die. Earthlink has already had a .33% drop in stock. I don't think SpeakEasy and Speed Factory are publicly traded. So I will make some prodictions for the next year.
1. Shareed ISP will die or convert back to dialup.
2. AOL and Compuserve will see a re-birth.
3. Modems will once again RULE the land.
4. Internet cost will go through the ROOF.
5. SOHO will no longer have the same access as now.
6. T1 ISP providers will also get hit. (Nuvox,New South, and others that sale to businesses.)
7. Online Gaming. Better get that online addiction fixed now!!!!!!!!
8. Online bill pay/banking/research
9. Offshore Tech support will loose jobs. CWA will fight offshoring and layoffs. Wide spread outages during strikes are to be expected.
Well, it has been a good run while it lasted. Maybe now the spyware/adware infections will go down some. So much for this good job I have now.
However, the side effect I see will that we fall farther back in broadband usage ranking worldwide - the telcos will likely drag their feet in network upgrades, like they have for rural areas. (And that said, it's probably time to start investing a few bucks into doing that ourselves. Anyone got a fat pipe they can share for the rurals?
This sig no verb.
Are you saying the telephone company pays an extreme cost, that a newcomer would pay more than the telephone company, or just that covering a useful amount of distance on poles is cost-prohibitive for a startup, no matter the per-pole cost?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Option C. The cost of stringing copper on all those poles the first time was so much that the government had to help.