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."

17 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. I don't see what's wrong... by donleyp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:I don't see what's wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Except for the fact that telcos use public money to build those networks, not their own in most cases.

    2. Re:I don't see what's wrong... by Ravatar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Read this, then you'll understand.

  2. FIOS by doormat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:The FCC, unnecesarily restricting freedom? by andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DSL services are already monopolies in many areas, partially due to the significant infrastructure needed to roll out the service.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  4. Deregulation never works by BCW2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:I've been by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What do you mean by Linux-friendly? A Linux box gets an IP just like every other computer. Unless you mean that when you call them to find out why the Internets are broken, they don't force you to pretend to reboot Windows.

  6. Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  7. What about Municipal WiFi? by AYauFu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, without competition over DSL and Cable, will consumers be "allowed" to have municipal WiFi, or will the monopolies still cry foul?

  8. Re:I've been by Halthar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a Speakeasy customer for the past 18 months. They are easily the best company I have dealt with, and not just for broadband service.

    As you have said, they aren't the cheapest out there, but I don't mind paying a higher price for the service speeds I get and the consistently good support I get from them. I have only needed to call them twice, both were for the same incident of my line was down, which as it turns out wasn't completely their fault.

    The providers apparently are given an out of date database by the telcos which tells them which CO a line should be going into. This is how they get estimates to tell you if you are within a certain range for a certain level of service. Unfortunately the DB is often wrong. In my case, for example, my line is run into a CO over 2 miles from my residence. Up until this point I had been running a 6Mbps down/756Kbps up line, and it started to drop off every now and then (hence my call). There is a lot of construction at the moment where I live and the line drop was caused in part by the distance of the run, and in part by the construction crews messing with the lines near my residence.

    They placed the line into a diagnostic mode for a day to watch things, but while I was on the phone informed me of the distance problem, but said that if things seemed to stay stable, to call them back and have the diagnostic mode shut off. I called the next day and was immediately forwarded through to the person who initially put things in diagnostic mode, and had it taken out of diagnostic mode. It's been fine ever since, and at over 2 miles from the CO I still have my 6Mbps service.

    Granted, the line staying stable at that distance is a function of the actual copper, but the support I recieved on these calls was the best support I have gotten from any company anywhere. While waiting on the phone while the support person was testing my line and such, we discussed programming, networking, and other computer related topics. That didn't even happen with people I have worked with at various ISPs who, at one time or another, have employed me.

    Their staff is top notch, their support is great, their TOS are the best I have seen, and I will be pissed if they get squashed because the FCC decides to deregulate.

  9. Re:I've been by Halthar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I haven't needed their support to get my Linux box up and running, but I have talked to a few people there, and have discussed things like Shell Scripting with each one of them. When you sign up for an account, they also provide instructions for Linux users. Something I don't remember getting from Verizon when I had service with them.

    Their support folks actually know what they are doing, and are actually knowledgable about Linux/BSD/etc in my experience.

  10. Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  11. Naked DSL Should be Requirement by rabun_bike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. Add me to the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:Universal internet access by superdude72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes there are certain things government should do like protect life and property but that's about it.

    Why do you think so?

    This is an article of faith amongst conservatives (Milton Friedman conservatives--not the crooks who run the modern GOP). However, if the government can provide a service more cheaply, and with good enough quality, then why not have it do so? I have no complaints about my government-provided tap water, for instance. It meets a higher standard of quality than some of the stuff you buy bottled in stores, is delivered with absolute reliability, and is so cheap my landlord doesn't even bill me for it.

    I shudder to think what water service would be like if it were provided by the equivalent of SBC.

    TAP WATER AMERICA
    Cold water, 100 gallons - $20 per month, $2 ea. additional gallon

    TAP WATER AMERICA PLUS
    Cold & hot water, 100 gallons - $40 per month, $2 ea. additonal gallon

    TAP WATER AMERICA FAMILY
    Cold water, 500 gallons - $80 per month, $2 ea. additional gallon

    TAP WATER AMERICA FAMILY PLUS
    Cold & hot water, 500 gallons, $160 per month, $2 ea. additional gallon

    TAP WATER UNLIMITED
    This plan allows you to roll over your gallon allotment from month to month, for a small service charge

    TAP WATER UNLIMITED FRIENDS & FAMILY AMERICA PREMIUM
    Get a $50 gift certificate if you turn over the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of 5 friends or relatives

    Etc, etc. You get the idea.

  14. Re:I've been by shogarth · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't want to breakup the SpeakEasy love-fest, but they are not the only Linux-friendly game in town. I live in a relatively small market on the central coast of CA and have had several broadband providers over the last eight (yes, since 1997) years. Here are a few observations in no particular order:
    1. Verizon has offered 768/768 ADSL (not SDSL) service in this market since '97.
    2. Verizon's focus on businesses with that service has made it unreasonably expensive if you wanted a couple of static IP's.
    3. Third parties selling service over the 768/768 Verizon circuit have been available since '97 and had more attractive service packages (IP's and TOS 's). These offerings would not likely go away since Verizon is already being paid the retail circuit price.
    4. I recently tried SpeakEasy over a Covad circuit and canceled it after they were unable to set up a stable 768k upload speed to a residence that had been using a Verizon circuit for four years. Claims of excessive distance don't fly when I have a DSL box on the shelf next to it working.
    5. I agree that SpeakEasy was Linux friendly and had reasonably competent techs. However, their follow-through was lacking in my case.
    6. It is possible to get reasonable TOS from a cable company. After ditching SpeakEasy, I moved to Cox Business Services for 8 IP's and 4M/768k at about the same price (~$120/month). The TOS is comparable to SpeakEasy's.
  15. Re:Universal internet access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Unfortunately the major political parties don't give a darn about the future of our country or what makes sense in the long-term. They are interested only in short-term profiteering. They have no loyalty to the United States at all. Shame on all of us for not voting them all out! Anyone who votes for a Democrat or a Rebublican has no room to complain at all; you are getting exactly what you asked for.