FCC Reclassifies DSL, Drops Common Carrier Rules

Neil Wehneman writes "Via Media Law Prof Blog, it is reported that the FCC has reclassified broadband service as an "information service" instead of "telecommunications". This, among other things, gives the Baby Bells the same gift the cable companies got with Brand X : the right to stop opening their lines to competitors."

Comments

GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming

[Xizer]

GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming success.
GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming success.
Impi - GNAA PR Department, South Africa.

In a bold move to bridge cultural divides and to promote racial and sexual tolerance, GNAA president timecop, NAACP president Kweisi Mfumeq and the distributors and broadcasters of popular Naruto anime series embarked on an ambitious project to achieve these noble objectives.

The vehicle selected was the anime series Naruto. In collusion with the distributors on this series, it was agreed to not broadcast episode 146 for the week of August 1st to August 7th, 2005.

timecop proposed and executed the plan to provide an alternative viewing experience, which was aimed at reaching out to the targeted population, and bringing about the achievement of the goals of this project.

Spokesman for Nielsen Media Research Company, Armands Leimanis, estimated that 77439 people downloaded the torrent, which actually was the movie Gay Niggers from Outer Space masterfully disguised as Naruto 146. "Never in the history of mass media marketing has something been so successfully marketed on such a large scale in such a short period of time. timecop has succeeded in accomplishing what marketing gurus around the globe have been trying to do for decades. This is truly genius in motion."

timecop was unavailable for comment as he was on an expedition to photograph spiders.

Dattebayo, in a fit of rage at being excluded from this glorious endeavor, flipped out and made the channel #db on rizon.net +i (invite only) and +k (key). This led to the mass suicide of an estimated 16% of the Naruto viewing population. This is believed to be the single most damaging factor in limiting the distribution of GNFOS to the magical 100,000 leeches. NCAAP president Kweisi Mfumeq condemned Dattebayo's actions and compared them to the KKK and gay bashing organizations.

About Dattebayo and #db on Rizon:

#db is a neo-fascist translating group who foists its misguided translations of Naruto on the unsuspecting and naïve fans of this anime series, in an attempt to promote their own nefarious agendas.

About Gayniggers from Outer Space:

Overview
Sponsored by Carlsberg Pilsner
Produced by GayJack Movies
Distributed by WorldWide GayMovies
Dino De Laurentus & Raymond Hansen Present
A Lindberg & Kristensen Production

"The Universe. Its mighty power. Its evolutionary force, not to be stopped by anyone. In its beauty, this, this is a happy place to stay, filled with harmony and cosmic joy. A free place, where men can express themselves, and be as when they were born. All of this is, because someone cares. Because someone looks after us. When we sleep, when we play. When we act natural. This is a movie about those who risk life, and partners, to guarantee living in a wonderful and free universe. This is a movie about the Gayniggers From Outer Space. The Gayniggers come from the planet Anus, in the 8th Sun System, far far away from here. They are much, much more intelligent than any other creature in the Universe. The most fascinating thing about them is that they, with the help of their super intelligence, and their highly developed telepathic system, Braintapping, will be able to create a world, a society, a perfect world to live in without the presence of women. A MALE ONLY WORLD."

Starring
Coco P. Dalbert as ArmInAss
Sammy Saloman as Capt. B. Dick
Gerald F. Hail as D. Ildo
Gbartokai Dakinah as Sgt. Shaved Balls
Konrad Fields as Mr. Schwul
Johnny Conny & Tony Thomas as The Gay Ambassador

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being G

dde

[Anonymous Coward]

frist pist

First

[genrader]

It's about time they did this, goverment interference in the economy will, in the long run, screw people over. As broadband is becoming more widely available it is becoming easier to switch providers, as well.

Re:First

[the_unknown_soldier]

I call troll... Nobody is stupid enough to say a monopoly is good.

Re:First

[LostCluster]

As broadband is becoming more widely available it is becoming easier to switch providers, as well.

It won't be so easy if all that's left is the local monoploy cable company and the local monopoly phone company.

Re:First

[OohAhh]

But monopolies can afford so many more of those campaign funding dollars.

Re:First

[revscat]

It's about time they did this, goverment interference in the economy will, in the long run, screw people over. As broadband is becoming more widely available it is becoming easier to switch providers, as well.

It's been my experience that corporations are far more likely to screw people over than governments. Libertarian capitalism, like communism, looks good on paper but fails utterly in reality.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they reclassify DSL, there *is* still an important interference: the phone and cable companies have an effective monopoly on the use of the telephone poles or fiber conduits.

Re:First

[kcurtis]

Sure, just like AT&T treated customers fairly. Not as if they charged people fees to rent those sophisticated telephones, or that their actions were egregarious enough to lead to a court-directed breakup.

Clearly you are not a Verizon customer if you think the phone company won't screw you over. I'm just happy Covad (my DSL provider) has been actively seeking agreements with the Bells in preparation for this.

Personally, I think the FCC jumped the gun. Yes, there *may* be more competition in the future with wifi and internet-over-power, but at this point they are merely pitting two monopolies (cable and phone service) against each other. And given the long-term poor customer service of both of these, I'm less than thrilled at the prospects for this supposed "competition" benefiting me.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC, like the rest of the government, is "or is supposed to be" sticking to the constitution on their decisions. For them to force SBC, Verizon, et al to open their lines to the CLEC is unconstitutional, it would be like the government forcing McDonald's to Serve food from Burger King, or Vice Versa.

You know what, open up your own telephone company by laying your own cable down to compete, you have every right to do so. That brings me to another point, when Netscape was losing their market share to Microsoft over Internet Explorer, instead of competing with Microsoft, they took it to Washington and whined cried about losing to Microsoft. That is when the unconstitutional Anti-Trust case came about. Look what's happening right now, Microsoft hasn't really had any competition for a long time and was stagnant on any updates. As a result, Mozilla Firefox "Originally known as Mozilla Phoenix due to the fact it was basically Netscape rising from the ashes" was written and now is taking market share away from Microsoft, which is now developing Internet Explorer 7, which originally was developed for the Next Version of windows "Codenamed Windows Longhorn" is now being developed for Windows XP SP2. One problem, though, they are still stuck on themselves to compete and since they aren't developing IE 7.0 for Windows 98 or even ME, they are going to lose out to Firefox which supports Windows 98 on up, as well as Mac OS and Linux, and none of that came from that anti-trust lawsuit.

Revscat, that is what happens when the Free Market decides. Even a so-called "convicted monopoly" can lose out to a potential competitor, Microsoft might eventually lose out to Linux in the future. What happens when the government attempts to control the free market is when problems arise? People usually attribute the great depression to Herbert Hoover, but it was the government getting involved into the free market that led to it, it wasn't Hoover at all. The breakup of AT&T is another example, The "Baby Bells" are now almost as large as AT&T was before the breakup. On top of that, they even swallowed up AT&T.

To sum it all up, to have a prosperous nation, the government absolutely needs to stay out of the free market. Every time they get involved, not only do they voilate the constitution, they also make the economy a mess.
_____________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Re:First

[xs650]

That would be a biopoly

Re:First

[darkonc]

It won't be so easy if all that's left is the local monoploy cable company and the local monopoly phone company.

Especially if they both end up being owned by the same mega-corp -- But the FTC wouldn't allow that, would they?? (sigh)

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been my experience that corporations are far more likely to screw people over than governments. Libertarian capitalism, like communism, looks good on paper but fails utterly in reality.

Because government answer to the people every couple of years in elections.

Corporations answer to their bottom line.

One is held accountable for its actions, the other isn't.

Re:First

[Rich0]

You know what, open up your own telephone company by laying your own cable down to compete, you have every right to do so.

Uh, a few problems with that.

1. If you tried it, you'd be tossed in jail, since in most communities the phone company is the only company allowed to go stringing wires all over the place. At the very least they have far less expensive access to do so. They also own the poles and can charge your company for their use at a rate they deem fair.

2. In most areas the existing infrastructure was paid for by the community - either directly through taxes, or through subsidies of some sort, or through emininent domain, or through granted-monopoly-status in which the company could recover their sunk costs. A new provider won't get any of these benefits, and cannot compete.

Now, if the government were to eminent-domain all the poles/wires, and then auction them back out to competitive phone companies, you might have a point. However, I doubt that is going to happen.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the free market. However, the market in question is not free...

Re:First

[TheMiller]

Libertarian capitalism, like communism, looks good on paper but fails utterly in reality.

The problem being that it usually seems to fail due to government interference. It's hard these days in the U.S. to find an industry where the government hasn't interfered significantly via protective legislation or subsidies in various forms. Abroad, it's hard to find a free market economy that wasn't hobbled at inception by a too-rapid transition from a prior system, resulting in a lack of adequate financial and legal infrastructure. Admittedly, legislative stupidity is part of the 'reality' that a market model has to deal with, but at least in this country it's an aspect of reality that we could influence.

There are numerous things wrong with our current telecomm infrastructure in the U.S. It seems to me that there are two long-term directions we could take that would improve it. We could be honest about wanting government control over the pipelines, and pay for them. Perhaps communities could use the recent despised (rightly so, IMO) liberalization of eminent domain laws to buy the pipelines -- poles, wires, associated rights-of-way -- and lease use back to the telecomm companies. (Wouldn't be fun to turn liberalized eminent domain against the large corporations that wanted it?) We would have to be willing to pay the taxes necessary for the purchases and upkeep. This would be much more honest than the current situation.

Alternately, liberalize it, continuing in the current direction. These effective monopolies won't last in the face of improving wireless communications and other technologies. If prices go up, there'll be more incentives and money available to develop alternatives. Prices will eventually come down again.

Neither path should be pursued by sudden changes in the legislative environment, because it's the transitions that cause hardship. But we, as a nation, or at least as individual communities, need to figure out which alternative we prefer and stick to it. The current waffling back and forth is what causes a lot of grief.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look! Its one of those schizoid "Libertarians", who think people's rights can go to hell as long as they can retire rich of of their stock portfolio!

I won't vote Libertarian until the party throws all you fuckers out on your ass. Note that NOWHERE in the bill of rights are "corporations" or "fictional entities" or whatever other words you use for your piece of paper that you think gives you the right to dump shit in my water supply and not go straight to jail.

And for the last time, voting with my wallet does jack squat, unless you're going to give the government the power to tell me that your corporation is not doing evil things. Because from Enron and Worldcom, it's fucking obvious that you corporate whores are incapable of monitoring yourselves and telling the truth to the American public.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, open up your own telephone company by laying your own cable down to compete, you have every right to do so.

That's the rub here. You have the right, but you can't. You need massive amounts of investment. The barrier to the market is so high, that even if the existing players all offer shoddy services at inflated prices, it is still likely to be high enough that no new players enter the market, because the return on investment is too long-term or too costly for possible new market players.

That's the sad reality that has made me give up my libertarian views (and shocked me when I realized it): the free market is inherently unstable. Due to scale effects, it is profitable to merge. Once there are few enough players in the market that they can all come together and debate their situation, it is profitable to conspire to raise prices and decrease quality. The only thing stopping this from happening is a steady flow of new market players. But as market entry costs are raised, there is a steady risk of entry costs outgrowing potential profit. At least in a short enough term that it is competitive with other avenues of potential investment. As a result, the only thing protecting the freedom of most markets is constant government intervention to lower market entry costs.

This is also why anti-trust legislation does not punish merely owning a market. It punishes owning a market and raising entry costs to keep out competition. And very cleverly, its punishment is to force the monopolist to lower market entry costs. This is not a bad thing. It is in fact highly necessary.

Back to this specific case. What the government has just done is increase market entry costs. The conjecture now is that market entry costs will be so high as to make it unprofitable to become a new player in the DSL market, and that this in turn will lead to a power-abusing oligopoly. I agree with this view. I think the government's decision to decrease market regulation and increase market player freedom will lead to decreased market freedom.

Re:First

[DavidTC]

It's completely absurd to let phone companies own and control the wires, and yet be allowed to string wires wherever they want with no compenstation to the property owners or the state.

Oh, wait. This is the US. We give completely absurd handouts to corporations all the time. In fact, I'm fairly sure that's our motto.

What we need to do, and what we were working towards, is have one government-operated entity, or just the government itself, control the wires and the building they go to, and the phone companies jsut come in and hook up. That's, legally, almost where we were...sure, the phone companies owned the building and wires, but they had to charge themselves the same amount ot use them as anyone else.

This, of course, is completely unacceptable, because...um. I dunno.

All I can say is, thank God gays can't get married! (That's my new standard tagline whenever the Republicans rip us off. Feel free to use it.)

Re:First

[colinrichardday]

duopoly. Think Greek, not Latin.

Re:First

[xs650]

It's all Greek to me.

Re:First

[$1uck]

"You know what, open up your own telephone company by laying your own cable down to compete, you have every right to do so" And this is why Libertarians can't be taken seriously. How am I or any small startup or hell even a reasonably sized corporation supposed to do the above? Lay thousands of miles of cable across public and private land? I suppose w/o the benefit of ED either (b/c you don't like that idea either do you?) "To sum it all up, to have a prosperous nation, the government absolutely needs to stay out of the free market. Every time they get involved, not only do they voilate the constitution, they also make the economy a mess." This hurts my eyes.. the government needs to ensure a free market and this means access to it(markets) for its citizens. Libertarians would trade one form of facism for another. Seriously someone needs to create Libertarian-lite(a party that doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater).

Re:First

[ChiRaven]

Libertarian capitalism opposes the concept of corporations, which are after all artificial "persons" created solely by governments. If you want to attack the libertarians, at least you might be consistent in your message.

Re:First

[mushroom blue]

Now, if the government were to eminent-domain all the poles/wires, and then auction them back out to competitive phone companies, you might have a point. However, I doubt that is going to happen.

uh. sorta already happened. every square foot in your city is owned by the city itself. it has the allodial title to every plot of land within its city limits. you may own the house on the land, but the land belongs to them. as such, they're allowed to contract with private companies to install and own sections of public utilities. Usually, the phone company pays a "lease" on the footage of land used to the city.

so yes, by playing the games of the city ownership, you really could just lay your own infrastructure.

Re:First

[mushroom blue]

I dunno. with enough capital (which is how all small business start), you could easily start a municipal broadband service of your own. you could use cable, 802.11g, or multiple other ways to obselete the larger cable companies with smaller, faster companies offering better service. as long as it's standardized and fairly transparent to the user, the bar of entry is damn low. and all you'd have to do is pay the city for use of the land to run the infrastructure.

Re:First

[Rich0]

Uh, you go ahead and try that...

Why don't you and a friend down the street set up a 2-wire phone system between your homes (easy enough to do). Then, try to obtain permission to string the wires over the public phone system across that nice tract of land that the township has allodial title for.

And that is for something that isn't threatening the business model of the local phone company. Next, try actually setting up a competitive phone system for your neighborhood. Even if you had a petition signed by every person within a mile of your house it would take a decade to make its way through court, and then you could start paying the local phone company to borrow the use of their poles.

Hey, don't get me wrong - I voted libertarian in the last election. And I'd be open to laws that made utilities competitive. However, the laws AREN'T written that way now, and trying to pretend that they are will just cause you to go bankrupt...

Re:First

[renehollan]

You do realize that the whole notion of a "corporation" is a government fiction, right?

With an ordinary company, the owners are personally liable for the company's wrongdoings (I lump LLCs, i.e. limited liability companies, in with corporations). Corporate directors generally are on the hook for criminal behavior, only.

While the corporate fiction relieves small shareholders of public corporations from responsibility for the corporation's wrongdoings, and thus makes stock ownership more attractive than if they were jointly and severally libable, the separation of power from responsibility leads to the corporate abuses we see today.

Re:First

[revscat]

And is exactly why libertarianism is and probably forever will be nothing more than a pipe dream.

Re:First

[revscat]

To sum it all up, to have a prosperous nation, the government absolutely needs to stay out of the free market.

Open your eyes, idiot. There is not a single libertarian nation on this planet -- with the possible exception of Somalia -- and yet there are many nations whose prosperity and success is high, whose people are healthy, educated, and peaceful.

Every time they get involved, not only do they voilate the constitution, they also make the economy a mess.

Every time they get involved, not only do they voilate the constitution, they also make the economy a mess.

I don't know if you are intentionally lying or simply incredibly stupid. Either way, you are utterly wrong, and even a cursory glance at the world around you would shows this. Capitalism is not the One True Holy economic philosophy. It works sometimes, fails sometimes. No system is perfect, and libertarian capitalism is no different.

A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

That is utterly pathetic. No one group can make claim to being the one true Constitutional party, any more than any given church can lay claim to know the "true" word of God. Sure, zealots make such claims, but they are just that: zealots.

Re:First

[revscat]

Which is exactly my point, namely that reality and libertarianism diverge in ways significant enough to make libertarian capitalism nothing more than a pipe dream, little different from Marxist communism in its hopeful idealism.

I attack nothing, merely point out what seems obvious.

Re:First

[Kaenneth]

large Goverments are not so much 'evil' as stupid.

I have a saying I like to use:

"Never attribute to Malice that which can be adequitly explained by Ignorance."

with the addendum:

"Intentional Ignorance is just as bad as Malice."

Re:First

[Kaenneth]

uhhh, no.

You don't have the right to close and tear up streets, and endanger existing emergency services to dig fresh trenches for a redundant wire system. then the next guy to dig will cut your wires, as they called the real phone co, water co, power co, gas co cable co to check, and they all said it was clear.

You don't even have the right to used unlicensed radio frequences to cover large areas.

The telephone compainies are a government granted monopoly for a very good reason, and thats also why they need to be strictly regulated.

(How people managed to reason that those laws should apply to Microsoft, I don't quite get. I honestly think that all the people who 'complained' that Microsoft was the only real choice in the market actually hurt the competion; Why would someone invest/work-for/expect-support-from a company that people were saying was destined for failure?)

Re:First

[TheMiller]

It's completely absurd to let phone companies own and control the wires, and yet be allowed to string wires wherever they want with no compenstation to the property owners or the state. I think that's overstating the reality, or at least oversimplifying. A right of way, although often taken via eminent domain, is often paid for -- to the initial owner who is forced to grant it. After that, the loss of property value is presumably built into the price. (I know that whenever I've considered land for purchase, I have checked carefully -- myself -- for rights-of-way, and taken them into consideration.) Whether compensation is generally fair or not probably varies -- in fact, most of the details probably vary a lot state to state. The utilities do pay for the equipment and its upkeep. I don't think anyone is or was working towards publically-owned equipment. At least I don't ever remember hearing of any community proposing to pay a company to buy the equipment. What is generally done in the U.S. is to pretend that the utilities are private companies while regulating the use of their assets as if we, the public, owned them. It's a fundamentally screwed up and morally dishonest system that naturally leads to lousy companies and unhappy consumers. One entity representing consumers dictates -- with absolute power -- how to use assets and price product, while another entity, which is trying to make a profit for its shareholders, is responsible for owning, maintaining, and (hopefully) expanding those assets. What a joke. California's electrical system gave a wonderful example of how well this works. Most of cases of truly publically-owned utilities that hear of -- community-owned electric or phone companies, for instance -- sound like they work out fairly well. However, I haven't heard of any cases where the community owned and operated the pipes and leased them to suppliers. It would be interesting to hear if this has been tried, and how it worked out.

Re:First

[DavidTC]

Yes, that's how eminent domain works.

However, almost no telephone wires has land purchased by eminent domain.

They have to buy land if they want to put a pole on private property. They do not have to buy land if they just want to string it over your property.

And they therefore place almost every pole on the public right of way, again without paying anything, and run the wires wherever they want.

And, ironically considering the recent decision that says the government can buy land and give it to people who bring in more tax revenue, all the telephone purchased land has been purchased by the government and the telephone company just gets to put up poles for free. (Why should the phone company purchase the land when the government will do it for free?)

The telephone company, basically, owns no land. Everything they have ever put up is on public or government land, with the government purchasing land for them.

Half the time, the damn switching hub thingies on the side of the road are on government land.

And, yes, half-assed deregulation is what screwed up California. The story I heard is that they deregulated the production of power and placing it on the grid, but continued price regulations of the selling.

Thus producing the same effect as rent control has had in New York. Except instead of buildings standing vacant, it was power plants not being built in the first place.

You know, there is an obvious, sane way to deregulate everything, to introduce competition while keeping things stable. Take whatever tiny monopoly cannot be removed, like the power grid or the phone lines, hand it to something like the USPS, an 'organization' that is part of the government but is expected to pay its own way, and let everyone hook into it and compete for customers.

And then there is the other way, the way the government likes to do it, the fucking stupid way. It's hard to describe, but, like obscenity, you'll know it when you see it. Or at least when you get slammed upside the head by it.

Re:First

[unitron]

California's electrical problems really only arose after a criminally stupid version of de-regulation which forced the big power companies there to separate into two parts, one being still-regulated power distributing companies (which inherited pension and other financial obligations) who had to buy electricity in bulk on the spot market instead of being able to negotiate long term contracts, and the other part being power generating companies (this is the part that the big investors moved their money into) that were free to sell to whoever they wanted to.

Just another example of privatizing gains and socializing losses.

True

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a information service, since you don't need any special hardware. Right...

First Dupe Complaint!

[Anonymous Coward]

First Dupe Complaint!

ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered!

[Anonymous Coward]

Xizer (794030)

Hey everybody! One of the GNAA assholes forgot to click on the "Post Anonymously"!

Mod down and ban this fucker and all his Friends!

Re:ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered!

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, the idiot has an AOL im account. (chech his user page)

Re:ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered!

[legallyillegal]

FUCKING OWNED

Re:ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, he's just trying to join GNAA. If he did his first post troll anonymously he wouldn't get credit for it. Lameass.

Re:ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Don't you people know anything about the GNAA? Read up at http://www.gnaa.us/about.phtml

Re:ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless its a hacked account...

And as if by magic

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech was silenced overnight,
got something bad to say about [$MEDIA_CORPORATION] ? shame you cant access any websites that criticises it

still the upside is if you download something illegal its not your responsibility anymore, get scammed by a internet website ? then sue the [INFORMATIONSERVICE] for providing access to it
got spyware or a virus ? then sue [INFORMATIONSERVICE] for aiding and abetting the virus writer, if terrorists use [INFORMATIONSERVICE] and people are killed as a result of this then you know what to do

Re:And as if by magic

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, seems like free speech has been censored here already

An unrelated note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates, you do know you have a Monopoly? "Monopoly is just a game senator, I'm trying to control the fucking world" - Robin Williams (LIVE ON BROADWAY)

Uh oh

[Chazmati]

I have DSL through a smaller carrier (TDS Metrocom, lines owned by SBC, I believe). Sounds like my service is in jeopardy. But won't this kill phone service, too? I mean, if DSL rides on your voice line, and SBC can tell TDS they can't sell me DSL, I'll have to drop TDS entirely to keep DSL. Or switch to cable for Internet access and pay another 900# gorilla. Sigh.

Re:Uh oh

[Sc00ter]

Well I'm moving to an area with a suck ass telco and no chance of DSL.

Right now (at my current place) I have DSL from a local place (mv.com). They are fantastic but they only offer ADSL, so I have to keep a local phone line. I never use it.. I pay $15/month for nothing.

Now that I can't even get DSL I'm not going to get phone service, no reason to. My wife and I each have cell phones. Even if I do need it for whatever reason I'll get VoIP.

Point is, if they cut off the local DSL provider where I currently live, I'd do the same thing. So rather then getting $15/month from me, plus the fee they're charging my ISP, they would get $0.

Re:Uh oh

[WebCrapper]

According to the FCC's news release, you have 1 year of grandfathering left before they can cut your service... Yeha...

Re:Uh oh

[airjrdn]

Assuming you're here in the states; if you have small children, I'd skip the VOIP and stay w/the telco.

It's the law that the telco provide your phone with power, meaning even in a power outage, you can use your phone (dial 911, etc.).

Your broadband provider isn't under that same law. No power = no service.

Re:Uh oh

[Sc00ter]

I do not, and do not plan to have children, but I still have two cell phones as well. I'm also moving to a small town and have already met lots of people. It's a very friendly neighborhood and I'm sure in an emergency they would let me use their phones.

Re:Uh oh

[genrader]

That would in time make them offer service to you.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

The only salvation for these little ISPs (the incredibly great one providing my service included) may be WiMax, which I've seen described as a wireless ISP-to-doorstep solution.

Of course, small ISPs have done no infrastructure build-out outside of their own plants, but as we see with telephones in the 3rd world, it's a lot quicker and cheaper to get wireless set up than to plumb a city with copper and fiber.

Re:Uh oh

[Achra]

I'm confused...

You're moving to someplace without DSL, but _with_ cellular service. You're not planning on getting a local phoneline (so you're not going to dial-up).. How are you planning on connecting to Slashdot? :) As near as I can tell, you have 3 options (since it's a near certainty that wherever DSL is not, cable isn't either)...
1) Cell phone (Slow & expensive)
2) Satellite (Starband)... DSL downstream, dial-up speeds upstream... plus no internet when it rains hard
3) ISDN (depending on where you live maybe Expensive).. I live in "You've got a pretty mouth", TN.. ISDN is a workable solution here.. But then again, ISDN lines don't have carrier voltage in the US. (Who cares, you can just use your cell phone in the event of power-outage)

Point is, for all of your strong words, the odds of you not ending up with a telephone line to connect to your beloved Slashdot are somewhere between slim & none.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't going to affect Sprint where I live. They never opened up their network to other DSL vendors anyway. Since I don't have access to cable broadband I had to get DSL from Sprint. This ruling, while I don't like it, doesn't even affect me. Sprint gives it to me up the tail pipe each month. Why? Because they can!

Re:Uh oh

[rnturn]

``It's the law that the telco provide your phone with power, meaning even in a power outage, you can use your phone (dial 911, etc.).''

In theory, yes. But how many people have a phone that doesn't require a power supply wart plugged into AC for it to work. It's nigh upon impossible to even find a phone that doesn't require AC to operate any more. Of course, I suppose one could stick a UPS on their kitchen counter to keep the phone alive. (Yah, right. The missus would just love that.) I've hung on to an '80s-era cheapo Radio Shack phone that'll work when plugged into the phone jack. Just for cases when we have an extended power outage.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

There's such a thing called cable..

Re:Uh oh

[SA Stevens]

Cellular infrastructure also often fails in the scale of emergency being discussed. The cell towers usually aren't backed up anywhere near the way that the telephone service is. Those windowless 'central office' buildings the phone company maintains are full of batteries.

Go ahead and rely on your neighbors, but be careful; they might be as shortsighted as you.

Re:Uh oh

[Planesdragon]

It's nigh upon impossible to even find a phone that doesn't require AC to operate any more.

Not so.

In fact, it's trivally easy.

My VOIP phone box even comes with a battery pack that keeps the phone alive for a few hours even with the power off. Along with the corded phone I've had since before I was married, I don't have any worries of not being able to dial "9-1-1" in an emergency.

Re:Uh oh

[MBGMorden]

Out of the 5 phones in my house only 2 require external power (one has the answering machine and the other is cordless). It's actually QUITE easy to find a phone that doesn't require AC power. Just go to the local Wal-Mart/Target/whatever and pick out a corded phone with no LCD screens, caller id, or answering system. There are at least a dozen models like this at every store I go to.

Re:Uh oh

[Pharmboy]

But how many people have a phone that doesn't require a power supply

I have used cordless phones for many years. And for all of those years, I have always had ONE unpowered phone so I can call the power company when the power goes out. I have always lived in the country/outskirts of town, where power outages are more common, but this is common sense for anyone.

Unpowered phones are super cheap ($1-$3 at Goodwill or Salvation army if you are really cheap like me), *very* available, and you can just "Y" out of your wall into one and your cordless, and turn the ringer off on the unpowered one.

It is insane to not have ONE unpowered phone in your home. When the power goes out, often cell towerss are flooded, so you can't catch an outbound call if you wanted to. Probably from people who don't have a direct wired, unpowered phone.

Same reason I keep a couple days water and food stored: If power goes out (snow or rain storms, etc) I can get by just fine for a couple days. It takes so very little preparation, and the first time you are caught without it, you will never let it happen again.

Re:Uh oh

[slaad]

Do you even need a local phone line? A while back, I got tired of shelling out cash for a nearly pointless phone line and just cancled it alltogether. I use cable for internet access and my cell phone works fine if I need to use an actual phone. I don't talk on the phone that much, so I don't need to spend a ton on getting a billion and a half minutes for the cell, but if I did then VoiP is always an option nowadays anyways. The only thing I had that actually needed a landline was my TiVo, and that was fixed easy enough by getting a usb network adapter and hooking it up to my router so it could get programing updates online. The cell doesn't cost me any more than what I was paying for the landline in the first place, and now I'm not stuck either paying for two lines or having one line that can't leave my home.

Re:Uh oh

[anthony_dipierro]

It's the law that the telco provide your phone with power, meaning even in a power outage, you can use your phone (dial 911, etc.).

It's also the law that they provide this 911 service whether you order phone service with them or not. In my old apartment if you picked up the phone you'd get a dialtone, and if you dialed anything other than 911 you'd get a message saying something like "to order phone service, press 1; if this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911".

Your broadband provider isn't under that same law. No power = no service.

So, if your small children are alone in the home when the power goes out and an emergency happens, they have to use a cell phone to call 911?

Re:Uh oh

[anthony_dipierro]

They might not cut your service for a year, but the reseller providing your service might, when they realize that they're only going to be making money off you for one more year. A lot of them might just go out of business.

Re:Uh oh

[Breakfast Pants]

You can use an uninterruptible power supply and plug the voip phone, the cable modem, and the router up to it.

Re:Uh oh

[bloosh]

You'll find vast numbers of old phones that don't require AC power on Ebay, at flea markets, garage sales, etc.

I have a small collection of Western Electric 302 and 500 rotary phones. The WE 302 was made in 1947. It rings, dials and works perfectly with the Cox digital phone service.

Re:Uh oh

[TClevenger]

You should anyway. The telco is required by law to activate, at no cost, your line for 911-only dialing if your house is occupied and you choose not to pay for service. Buy a cheap unpowered phone, or get one from your local Freecycle. No sense spending extra seconds or minutes in an emergency pounding on the neighbor's door when you can get 911 service for free.

Re:Uh oh

[quacking duck]

We have two phones at the apartment that come with AC adapters, and both work fine as phones without being hooked into the outlet. We'd just not get the fancy LCD display or volume control.

Beyond that, I don't know where you're shopping, but there are tons of corded phones being sold in retail stores that don't need AC, and they're cheap too.

Re:Uh oh

[blackicye]

POTS infrastructure also often fails when a moron with a backhoe or shovel accidentally severs your connection. The telephone poles usually aren't backed up anywhere near the way that the cells are.

Those windowless 'central office' buildings the phone company maintains are full of batteries which in the event of your line being severed are still useless.

Go ahead and rely on your neighbors, but be careful; they might also be using POTS and thus will have also lost service.

Re:Uh oh

[jkerman]

TDS is a CLEC, not a SBC reseller. the wires plug into a TDS owned and operated switch/DSLAM.

nothing in this ruling will affect TDS. only the lesser companies that cannot afford to deal with the regulatory mess of getting access to the raw copper.

Re:Uh oh

[WebCrapper]

Honestly, I see this as good and bad.

Bad, because I was about to get into the ISP business... Good, because it puts a company that I was downsized from out of business - Earthlink.... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

But in the end, I see this being tied up in court for years to come.

Re:Uh oh

[zonker]

actually the large wiring boxes down your block by the curb are often the ones that are providing the power. that same box also provides the dialtone you hear when you pick up the line on most modern equipment.

Re:Uh oh

[HighBit]

Except, more often than not, if you're without power, your cable companies' local systems are without power as well; therefore no packets, and no phone.

Re:Uh oh

[cbreaker]

Maybe in a big city or something. When I lose power, the phones still work fine (well, the corded ones.) The cable-to-phone box they install gets power off the 90V that the coax carries.

That is unless of course a car hits a pole down the road that both cables sit on, which in case the phone companies lines would be cut too.

Obviously the cablemodem, computers, and TV's would turn off when you lose power.

Re:Uh oh

[MadAhab]

I have had a child with severe medical problems. Do you think I'd switch to VOIP or whatever? No freakin way. I have not one, but two "no electrical" telephones, because - what happens if she had a problem during a power outage? It's one of those circumstances where the reliability standards forced by monopoly status had a positive effect. Still - if the power goes out, my GAS stove is useless. A relative just bought an "antique" plain old gas stove with no electronics. What does it do? It works. Why did they buy it? The circuit board on their 12 year old stove died, and of course the replacement part cost almost as much as a new stove. Companies who make consumer devices have got to stop expecting best cases and start expecting worst cases. They've got to make devices that degrade gracefully, when possible.

Re:Uh oh

[HighBit]

interesting.

I have Vonage, not Time Warner's VoIP, but I know when the power to my apartment goes out, my cable modem doesn't shift packets. I've got all my equipment hooked up to a UPS (cable modem, router, computers, etc), but it seems whatever's on the other end of the coax to my house isn't hooked up to one.

Re:Uh oh

[macosxaddict]

It's also the law that they provide this 911 service whether you order phone service with them or not.

Can you cite a source, please? The local telco (Verizon) told me that they are not required to provide 911 service if I don't pay for a telephone line.

Re:Uh oh

[unitron]

Earthlink may be forced out of the DSL business where you are, but here in eastern N.C. Sprint (which bought up Carolina Tel & Tel several years back and which also apparently still owns some Earthlink stock) only offers Earthlink over DSL. If they dumped Earthlink a lot of subscribers would probably switch to Earthlink over cable to keep the same email addresses. (Around here Time-Warner cable only offers Earthlink other than the two ISPs they own, AOL and RoadRunner).

Earthlink may take a hit on DSL in some markets but I think they'll survive (and considering that they bought the ISP that I wound up with after two other mergers/buyouts and now own my email addresses domain, I hope they don't evaporate. Also since if I ever have to go to cable for access I don't want to depend on TW for both the wire and the ISP'ing, having experienced having them as a cable tv provider)

Re:Uh oh

[CharlesClarkson]

Companies who make consumer devices have got to stop expecting best cases and start expecting worst cases. They've got to make devices that degrade gracefully, when possible.

They already do make such products. You are just not buying them. Instead of changing all those companies, why not change your buying habits?

Re:Uh oh

[anthony_dipierro]

Hmm, I can't find it. I read somewhere else (just some blog, though) that the phone company only has to provide 911 service if you have a dial tone, which I suppose would make sense since I had a line at my old apartment then I had it disconnected. Not sure what the real truth is, I couldn't find anything on the FCC site.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are correct.. As cell phones also provide this. If you are not paying for cell service you still can dial 911..

Re:Uh oh

[LaCosaNostradamus]

That's true, but perhaps I should point out that "rugged" consumer products are difficult to find. There's simply no margin in them, and with millions of dorks with credit cards thinking that they're rich (or they're going to be rich once they sell their bubbled home), the higher-priced toys become the performing products.

It's like the SUV situation: they've gobbled up automobile market share. If you want a cheaply repaired, efficient machine, you're just out of luck.

I find it very difficult to buy anything, anymore. I want stuff that will last a long time and is repairable. But even at higher prices, the producers aren't interested in supplying such items to me. I find myself searching garage sales and donation stores for the old stuff that people used to value.

Re:Uh oh

[Pharmboy]

I have a small gas generator that is only 4400 watts, but that is enough to power the blower, etc for the gas heat (i have gas logs too, no electricity needed). since I have a well, instead of city water, I needed it for that too. I run it a few times a year and keep Stabil in the gas tank. I try to run the whole tank out every year, so the fuel is never more than a year old. Several times, I was the only one on the block with power, hot coffee, radio, tv, phone, and water. And food.

Re:Uh oh

[WebCrapper]

I've owned my own domain since I started working for MindSpring, who later merged with Earthlink. When I get a new ISP, I don't even setup their email account - I just use their SMTP...

As for ELNK surviving this - its a shame. To see such a horrible company that screwed so many of their employees in the past go out of business would be a major payback... I hope you realize that 98% of support and service (doesn't matter which dept) is outsourced in India or Korea...

Re:Uh oh

[perelgut]

A couple of summers ago, the Northeast was blacked out. I was sitting in a rented apartment, waiting for my condo to be finished and trying to work when the ADSL line dropped and things went black. I finally figured out that it was more than my unit.

So, I went outside to the apartment pool and told my wife and kids to hang out there for a while. Then I went back in to see if I could find a radio (actually found one - with batteries and everything). Couldn't make out much more than that there was a bigger blackout in progress. I thought it was a local transformer - one of those times when a squirrel or raccoon goes kamikaze and takes out power to 20,000 people.

And then... the telephone rang. My father, from Hamilton (50mi away) checking that we were OK. No lights (ended up without power for 3 days) but the darned phone worked. Flawlessly.

Don't knock those landlines!

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

lets hope that in an emergency sc00ter gets his cell phone shoved up his ass by a 250 pound black man

Re:Uh oh

[Mycroft_VIII]

That outsourcing would explain a few things i suspect.
    My dad's email acount had some serious issues a year or so ago so I check with two mail programs (one os OE which he used and I forget the other) and got the same dropped connection at the same email.
    So I dig out the rfc in question and telnet into his acount and do it manually, and shure enough it's bailing out on one specific e-mail at a the exact same place and on no others. It doese this whether I pull that one first or not, and on no other email.
    So I call them and get told they only support OE and not 'telnet mail reader' or 'rfc mail reader' by the tech. This guy can't even understand when I explain them to him.
    This exact senario (with the email bombing at a specific mail) happend a dozen times in 6 months before fading to about 3 times in the following year. The only solution I found was to delete the offending mail without d/l'ing it till they got a web interface working.
    The online helpers can't seem to figure out how much they would charge if I set up isdn, and can't seem to understand english well enough to realize that thier answers make no sense.
    The account started out as a local isp (owned by the big newspaper here of all things) that decided not to stay in that bussiness and transfered all accounts to mindspring which got bought out shortly there after.

Mycroft

Re:Uh oh

[WebCrapper]

Yea, this was a standard problem with Outlook/Express. Normally the headers are corrupted. Oddly enough, Earthlink would occasionally send out a corrupted message that would stop up even their own mail client... Only thing we could do is offer webmail to clean out the offending message or tell them to use another client.

Our worst mail issue was the Netcom D fiasco - I won't even go there...

MindSpring started outsourcing but fired several places due to quality issues. Once the the merger was inked, everyone and their brother got company cell phones and pagers and they seriously started looking for outsourcers.

In the long run, after working for both MindSpring and Earthlink for awhile, I'm glad the MindSpring name is gone. Earthlink ended up ruining their own name and not the MindSpring name.

Re:Uh oh

[Mycroft_VIII]

I got a serious case of deje-vu reading your reply, it was a lot like that tech support call.
    I say email and EVEN though I made it clear (to any with any clue what pop3 and telnet are) the problem was the server you still said it was OE related, it WASN'T.
      I'm not trying to flame, but I SAID I used telneted in and used straight pop3 commands and it would bork partway through a bad message. It was the mail SERVER borking and borking mid-stream.
    Again I'm not trying to flame, please try reading through what I said and I hope you can see why your reply that it was a standard problem with OE made as little sense as thier tech people saying so.
    FWIW Mindspring is still a valid domain, though it re-directs to earthlink. And I know people who still have a mindspring email address.

Mycroft

Re:Uh oh

[WebCrapper]

Thanks for the morning laugh. Made me feel like I was back in Electronic Support answering an email. At least you replied nicer than I would have...

The headers being corrupted are actually caused by 2 sitautions.

The first is easy - A spammer buys or hacks together a program that kills certain headers. This naturally causes problems for anyone attempting to download the message, on any mail server. Normally when one of these came about, we could recognize the message and support could pull it out of a users mailbox within minutes of someone complaining about a mail problem (Done on a case by case basis). In extreme situations, like when ELNK would send out this type of stuff, it was done automagically by us and a new message was placed in its spot (just like it was never deleted). Now, the funny part is, Eudora and other mail clients can still grab this crap - OE can't... Thats why I said it was OE - I didn't even mention all the security issues of using it, but if you're here, thats enough. I recently switched my family over to Thunderbird because the default layout is similar to OE.

The second reason is ELNK's mail server. I betchya ELNK's own outsources don't even know about this one... The reason: they use MindSpring's mail server which was a custom created solution... It was a customized open source package fit to their server environment. (They have/had the largest DEC Alpha Array in the country. If they found a bug, Compaq would write a custom patch for them.) Before the Netcom D situation, they had never lost a single piece of mail. (and Netcom D wasn't even their fault) While its very good software, it does cough once in awhile.

Now, next time you call, they won't admit it, look into or anything, but now you know.

Long story short, buy a domain name and setup your own mail solution for your family. I did this years ago and now when there is a problem, I know about it, I fix it and I apologize for my own mistakes... ELNK offers mail forwarding (again, something they don't normally advertise) for anyone that is moving mailboxes - set this up for awhile after moving the address and just have them tell anyone that sends through the ELNK address. If you don't like this route, use mail2web.com to kill the offending message since it just fetches the subjects first. Oh yea, if you threaten to cancel, they should offer "you" a free month too...

God, its so nice being able to tell both sides of a 3 headed monster... Don't even get me started on their customer database(s)... But, enough for now, I don't need to get one of those nasty letters in the mail from ELNK.

Re:Uh oh

[Mycroft_VIII]

*SIGH* you still didn't read and/or didn't understand what I said originally, had nothing to do with headers.
    Telnet doesn't care about email headers, it's not a mail client. When using telnet to get email YOU are the pop3 client in a way. You send the base pop3 commands (list, del, send, top, etc.) and parse the replies yourself.
      *I* sent the raw command (via telnet) to send a particular message, the message starts, gets well past the header and partway through the actual message itself then the server just drops the connection. It doesn't matter whether I've read or deleted the previous messages or even messages after. When It was happening if it bombed out on line 44 of the message the first time it'll bomb at the EXACT same point every time.
    You are making me suspect something in thier training/culture at mindsring/earthlink creates tunnel vision. It's like calling your isp about some issues with your cable modem constantly being throttled by them to 14.4k and them insisting it's something wrong with the adsl filters on the phone jack and thus the phone comapanies fault, no matter what you tell them about having a cable connection.
    Again I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight, but you are doing a beautifull job demonstrating why I don't deal with thier tech support people unless I have to and usually ask for a higher level tech when I do.

Mycroft

Re:Uh oh

[WebCrapper]

I'm not fighting either, but I really do understand what you're saying.

I agree that this issue isn't anything to do with your end. This issue was always explained as a header issue to me. (and I was tier 3) If you've found another bug, good for you (sorry too)... If they've played with the software, which I can REALLY see them doing, I could see this being an issue. Long story short, without knowing their systems anymore, I can only offer you the, now old, information I had while working there. The problem you are describing was *always* a header issue while I was working there. Somethings changed.

And I understand the tunnel vision training - all the newer techs had it. I started before we offered DSL and actually got to understand how the systems worked. While now they will hardly ever have someone walk out to their NID - it was normal for the properly trained people to do it within minutes of a bad problem. Although I will admit being part of the tunnel vision group of "upgrade your modem drivers, thats why you're not getting 56k..."

I honestly hated my job after ELNK took over because every single call/email usualy started out with "I'm sorry for..." Now, I'm just some poor soul stuck in Europe ;-)

Re:Uh oh

[Mycroft_VIII]

The fact that I could reproduce the problem with telnet should have instantly eliminated any thoughts of the headers having ANYTHING to do with it unless the SERVER is processing them.
    That's my point, lack of understanding of the basics by those supposedly offering tech support.
  Telnet is essentially a terminal connection of tcp/ip, at this point the user is the one implementing pop3.
    Also headers are just lines in a text file when you get down to it, the ONLY thing that makes them special relative to the rest of the email file is how the mail client handles them.
      Here are some links, first pop3 is at <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1939.txt> and the wiki entry on telnet is particularly on point in places for this discussion http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc855.txt<URL:http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Telnet>.
  Telnet also has two rfc entries and pop3 it's own wiki entry: <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt>,<URL:http ://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc855.txt> and <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POP3>.
    I hope these help you to understand why I got frustrated, the tech guy had NO clue what telnet was, and frankly tech support an isp should no at least something more than JOE sixpack about the net and basic net utilities (though a simple chart for L1's would be enough to know to get a real tech).

Mycroft

Re:Uh oh

[Mycroft_VIII]

Whoops, forgott to change the posting setting so the url's would be clickable sorry.

Mycroft

DUPE

[Anonymous Coward]

Another fucking dupe...

But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[Gothmolly]

Yes, its mostly modern fiber and VOIP internally, but there's copper to every house, and poles, and those discrete switching stations in the bushes. Who paid for all that? Since we (the US Taxpayers) did (whether its good or bad is irrelevant to this discussion), it should be open to all.
Those who live by the government teat (Telcos) should have to die by it, too.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who paid for all that?

Your grandparents. Now they paid for a hell of a lot more going to war and all. Please put that in perspective before bitching about what is essentially gizmos and modern comfort.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[Sc00ter]

I don't know about you, but in my hometown the polls were put in by the electric company who also pay tax to the town for the property they use. They then lease that to the telephone and cable companies that pay to have the lines run on those polls.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[rollingcalf]

"I don't know about you, but in my hometown the polls were put in by the electric company who also pay tax to the town for the property they use."

I'm sure the electric company has or had a government-granted monopoly in the town.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[corngrower]

Are you saying your phone lines are still above ground on poles? Man I thought that went out over 30 years ago. You're quality of service must be horrendous.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[Sponge Bath]

...your phone lines are still above ground on poles?

Yes, along with the phone itself. Mr. Haney assures me the quality is second to none.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[blincoln]

Are you saying your phone lines are still above ground on poles? Man I thought that went out over 30 years ago. You're quality of service must be horrendous.

Most of the US is like this, except for actual core metropolitan areas. I live about a 1/2 mile from downtown Seattle, and my phone and electricity are both from poles.

My understanding is that moving them underground is about aesthetics, not quality. It's a lot more expensive, and if you're in an earthquake-prone area I imagine it would be pretty awful to to and find the broken lines after one.

Even in geologically stable regions, underground wiring for large areas seems like a bad idea to me. Look at New York City and its electrified/heated-by-steam-to-branding-temperatur es manhole covers of death and destruction.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[Breakfast Pants]

Only because they were the lowest bidder.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[absinthminded64]

Oh C'mon! Those Con Edison hot plates are great for scrambled pigeon eggs and east river fish!!

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[OldManAndTheC]

I agree the network should be open to all, but I believe the telephone network in the U.S. was privately financed and supported by revenue from ratepayers, not taxpayers. Of course the Bell telephone company had a valuable government monopoly, but in return they had to provide universal service and were heavily regulated.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[TwinkieStix]

I live in southern California. My neighborhood (and most of my city) uses underground cabling to make the city look better. When new lines are run, the simply open up a street cover and run the lines through a pipe that they laid. It's just like running wire through conduit in the walls of a building. It's actually quite easy to work on. When earthquakes hit, the poles move around enough to take out all wired utilities in other areas, but I don't think I've had an earthquake-related outage since I've lived in this city (20+ years) with underground wiring.

Re:But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[corngrower]

No, most of the midwest has underground telephone. The power lines are above ground in rural areas, but newer developments in towns usually have them underground as well. This is for reliability. Those occasional ice storms can really wreck havoc on lines above ground. Those linemen really don't like to be out in sub-zero wind chill weather replacing mile after mile of poles and wires that get broken off. The maintenance of above ground wires is too high.

Surely this leads to less competition?

[DavidRawling]

I don't understand.

Surely this means that the local "Baby Bell" will be able to prevent other companies from using the infrastructure, either directly or by pricing them out of the market?

If so ... how does this help the consumer? Who lobbied for this? And why was it done? TFA has little detail and the FCC press release seems to be more self-servient than anything else.

Now ... if the price they sell broadband at is $29.95/month, but they will only sell line access to the competing ISP at $39.95/month, the ISP cannot compete.

In Australia Tel$tra did just this (briefly) and got a slap on the wrist from our consumer agency, the ACCC. Is there a similar organisation in the US? Is that what the FCC press release is commenting on in the 2nd last para:

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should develop a framework for consumer protection in the broadband age - a framework that ensures that consumer protection needs are met by all providers of broadband Internet access service, regardless of the underlying technology.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[Ruie]

One side effect we can hope for is that once alternative broadband providers are cut off from existing infrastructure they might decide to put down their own - say fiber optic instead of copper.

Of course, how many will decide to this is uncertain at best.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[hab136]

One side effect we can hope for is that once alternative broadband providers are cut off from existing infrastructure they might decide to put down their own - say fiber optic instead of copper.

The existing infrastructure was built using monopoly pricing and government assistance. There is no way a private company could build their own infrastructure to match that.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[JDevers]

I would imagine that government assistance would be somewhat forthcoming in a REAL upgrade (like FTTH in ~75% of US households). Another thing you have to remember is that the bulk of the original telco rollout happened when the US population was around 120M and not the 297M that it now is. That equals a significantly improved return on investment, also the economic climate is better (this also figures into the government assistance, they reason that this class of improvement will yield a significant impact on our economy...so they would be very willing to offer a helping hand).

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Surely this means that the local "Baby Bell" will be able to prevent other companies from using the infrastructure, either directly or by pricing them out of the market?

Well, we could always prevent THEM from using OUR infrastructure if they don't want to play by our rules. They seem to have a lot of trouble remembering that their existance depends upon governments and private property owners granting them permission to place their equipment all over our property.

Maybe as additional wireless frequences are opened up and range is improved that might actually start to become practical. And communities could just run their own wired infrastructure.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[elmegil]

I don't like this decision much myself (I'm set to be squeezed off my current DSL provider by the local telco monopoly), but it seems to me that if local governments don't like it, they can start offering assistance to those competing companies, or work to overturn rules and laws preventing them from providing the infrastructure directly themselves, the way many do water and sewer, for example. Wow, what a fine sentence!

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[Erwos]

"There is no way a private company could build their own infrastructure to match that."

You mean like the fiber optic lines that Verizon is laying down at a stunningly high pace around here? Sorry, sir, but that argument isn't going to fly.

-Erwos

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[SA Stevens]

Well, we could always prevent THEM from using OUR infrastructure if they don't want to play by our rules.

Be careful. In the new legal environment, what constitutes 'THEM' and what constitutes 'OUR' has changed radically. The recent Eminent Domain ruling has changed a lot of the rules. (basically, those slick fucks who took both Business Administration and Sociology courses in college, meaning 'the liberal MBAs', are on the march)

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[jba]

And how do you think verizon is paying for that? With the monopoly money that we (the citizens of the US) gave them.

Verizon only has to sit on their ass to make billions - no private startup could ever compete with that in the current funding environment.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[hab136]

I would imagine that government assistance would be somewhat forthcoming in a REAL upgrade (like FTTH in ~75% of US households).

Do you really think the govt will hand out money to random upstarts? Or will all this money go to Verizon/BellSouth/SBC/PacBell, making them further entrenched as the dominant monopolies?

Another thing you have to remember is that the bulk of the original telco rollout happened when the US population was around 120M and not the 297M that it now is. That equals a significantly improved return on investment, also the economic climate is better (this also figures into the government assistance, they reason that this class of improvement will yield a significant impact on our economy...so they would be very willing to offer a helping hand).

I don't understand the argument.. there's more people now, therefore a new telco will have a better ROI? There are indeed more potential consumers of telco products now than when telephony was new. However, since everyone who wants a phone already has one, the only way to get customers is to offer a service that the existing telcos do not, or to price yourself lower than the existing telco.

The general feeling I've seen from investors is that any new telco offering is going to get stomped by the Baby Bells, much as how most of the upstart DSL providers have been stomped in the last few years.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[hab136]

"There is no way a private company could build their own infrastructure to match that."

You mean like the fiber optic lines that Verizon is laying down at a stunningly high pace around here? Sorry, sir, but that argument isn't going to fly. My mistake, I should have used "non-Baby Bell company" rather than "private company". We were talking about upstarts, after all.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[Threni]

Never mind that, check out this:

http://cryptome.org/fcc080505.htm

FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP Providers to Accommodate Wiretaps
Order Strikes Balance Between Law Enforcement, Innovation

Washington, D.C. - Responding to a petition from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Commission determined that providers of certain broadband and interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services must be prepared to accommodate law enforcement wiretaps, the Federal Communications Commission ruled today.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[JDevers]

No, I'm nearly 100% positive that ALL the money will go to the ILECs.

The argument is that when the original telco wire was put down, there were only a handful of metro areas, now there are many more. Before (outside of the cities), there were x number of customers per linear foot of copper, now there are 2x number of customers per linear foot of fiber. That pretty much guarantees a higher return on investment. While everyone already has a telephone, we aren't talking about telephone connections we are talking about ubiquitous broadband communications. Not everyone has broadband and a lot of the people who do would really enjoy the potential bandwidth that fiber offers. More than that though, it will allow the telcos to prevent customers from leaving them to join up with the cable companies. Right now, you can get a complete package from most cable companies (telephone, TV, and broadband) but telcos can't currently offer TV, so you have alliances between satellite TV companies and telcos. Don't you think that SBC et al would rather have that be a 100% in house offering? That is something they could do with fiber, hell they could offer a lot MORE than the cable companies.

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are the facts on competition in South Bend, IN, today. SBC is the telco monopolist. Comcast is the cable monopolist.

1. A Google search for ADSL providers in South Bend turned up 3: SBC/Yahoo, Verizon, Earthlink. There used to be many. I'd say SBC has kept others out already or undermined them with delays, technical hurdles and documented dirty tricks (in some areas).

2. SBC has fiber optic in the ground along every main thoroughfare in the city. The nearest line is 2 blocks from my house. The fiber optic was laid about five years ago. There is no fiber optic service to my home or my home-office. Forget the last mile. Hello last 2 blocks. I surmise SBC is waiting to drive out ADSL competition before using the fiber optic. Or maybe, not even then. The city of South Bend formed a consortium of businesses, primarily the largest non-profits, to create a hi-speed MAN for downtown businesses. Were they tired of waiting on SBC?

3. If your home office is in a new home in a high-income zip code, SBC installs a fiber optic "network" interface termination box or an upgrade to one--you don't even have to ask for it. In older neighborhoods and lower income areas, you must ask for the network interface: However, no notice is ever given that a fiber optic network interface is available.

4. Comcast basic service costs more today than it did in the 70's, adjusted for inflation. Comcast's community cable access studio has NO digital equipment, and the analog equipment (S/VHS only) is 15 years old and deteriorating. Sometimes the equipment simply doesn't work for weeks or months because there is so little budget for repairs.

5. SBC attempted to prevent municipally owned hi-speed WANs in Indiana cities where SBC has the monopoly contract. SBC wrote legislation and found state representatives to sponsor the law. The legislation was thankfully defeated in the General Assembly. Such laws passed in Texas, Pennsylvania and other state legislatures. SBC is not only anti-competitive, but anti-democratic, seeking to quash grassroots demand for MAN service.

6. SBC ADSL installation costs $200; free if you do it yourself. SBC "discounts" ADSL from $49.95 to $26.95/month for new accounts. My monthly fee has increased to $31.42/month. I receive less discount, I suppose, for being a long time loyal customer and not jumping ship for another vendor. Oh, I forgot--there are only two other vendors, and they must negotiate to use SBC's monopoly lines. Pardon me! I forgot again. SBC is no longer required to negotiate with its 2 remaining competitors.

7. The SBC ADSL contract period is 12 months. If I switch to WiFi or cable broadband and terminate the SBC contract, I must pay off the balance of my contract--possibly not at the "discounted" price. I must also have a POTS line to my office to receive ADSL service. SBC is the POTS monopolist: add approximately $43.00 for basic business service. Total for ADSL? About $75.00.

Tom

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[j1m 5n0w]

if the price they sell broadband at is $29.95/month, but they will only sell line access to the competing ISP at $39.95/month, the ISP cannot compete.

Don't they already do this? (Verizon DSL prices vs Easystreet DSL prices) Easystreet's Verizon line charge is more expensive than buying DSL straight from Verizon, with one year contract. Are these numbers accurate, or am I missing something here?

Re:Surely this leads to less competition?

[Tmack]

Carriers/ISPs get special pricing through deregulation thats basically at-cost for the ILEC (incumbent local-exchange carrier, ie: baby bells). So while they might sell their own service cheaper (and probably at a small loss), its not the same price that Earthlink/Yahoo/Speakeasy/etc get the same line for. That price is determined on how much the re-seller is actually getting from the ilec, if its just the lines themselves, or if they are leasing the entire setup (muxes/dslams/etc). For example, you will be hard presses to find a full T1 service for less than $500/month, but to lease the T1 for resale (if you have your own terminating equipment in the nearest colo rather than leased from the telco as well ie: facility based UNE or EEL rather than resale based) it might cost only $50-100 depending on segment lengths and such (see here, pick a state in the exhibit A pulldown and look at section 9 on the excel file). Of course, that doesnt include the price for the colo space, your originating equipment, interconnects to the providers for actuall internet access (usually charged by the Gb), etc, but thats how re-sellers make their money: by reducing the cost of those variables as opposed to the way the ILECs do it.

tm

Corporate America

[jurt1235]

As it might be clear to the average US citizen by now, is that monopolies are detested by the US goverment. They do everything in their power to break foreign monopolies to give US companies a fair chance in the big bad foreign world.

What is also clear by now is that for inside the US there are different rules. Good luck! I live in a foreign country and the weirdest things happen under the name of free market (like jeopardizing the electricity network), but everything gets more expensive because of this. You (US citizen) however are in the lucky situation that things happen in reverse, and everything will get more expensive.

Re:Corporate America

[LostCluster]

I live in a foreign country and the weirdest things happen under the name of free market (like jeopardizing the electricity network), but everything gets more expensive because of this.

California is not a foreign country.

Re:Corporate America

[jurt1235]

No, but we copied the Californian model overhere in Europe, and it really works out good! From a good distributing grid network buffer we are now on the edge of outages since companies do not like to invest in buffers (buffers are overcapacity and therefore expensive).

Re:Corporate America

[timeOday]

California is not a foreign country.

Sounds like you haven't visited for a while.

Re:Corporate America

[corngrower]

As it might be clear to the average US citizen by now, is that monopolies are detested by the US goverment

You're joking, right? The U.S. government doesn't seem to mind monopolies as long as they're not too out of line. Take for instance commercial airlines. At Minneapolis and Detroit, Northwest Airlines has a virtual monopoly and charges rates pretty much as they see fit.

Re:Corporate America

[aaronrp]

Not yet, anyway. http://www.newcaliforniarepublic.org/index.html

Re:Corporate America

[idokus]

It isn't a country, but hell it's foreign.

offtopic (to me at least :) and I'm not the only one who isn't a US citizen, I recently saw a great dutchism http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158309&cid=132 63501/ what was meant of course was Dutch soccer team, this to the foreigners translates directly to Nederlands voetbal team (foot is stated as voet in Dutch)) /offtopic

Re:Corporate America

[jurt1235]

You're joking, right?

It was meant sarcastic (-:

Re:Corporate America

[jurt1235]

Yep, pretty much offtopic, but a good read anyway (-:

Re:Corporate America

[Anonymous Coward]

hypersonik.com registed to:
          Norbert van Nobelen Jurt1235@xs4all.nl
          31.306067843
          Fax: 31.306067843
          Muiderschans 33
          Nieuwegein 3432 XB
          NL

Re:Corporate America

[Pharmboy]

The U.S. government doesn't seem to mind monopolies as long as they're not too out of line.

As you know, he was being sarcastic, but in reality, the govt. *prefers* monopolies in some areas. Having a monopoly is NOT illegal in the US, in spite of some people's misunderstanding. (abusing it is, however) In many instances, you and should *want* a monopoly as well. Rare, but sometimes.

Monopolies are what allowed us to have cable TV to begin with, and telephone. It allowed them the freedom of profit to invest in the infrastucture. Granted, once the original investment has been regained a few times over, allowing competition is often the better route, but when there is no infrastructure, nothing works as good as a govt sanctioned monopoly.

Keep in mind, I am not aware of any areas where you can get DSL, but you can't get cable. I know *many* places were the opposite is true. Anyone can get satalite internet (and I had it for years because I had no choice. Yes, it sucks but it works.) So whether DSL is a monopoly or not, affects very few people because if they can get DSL, they have other options.

I have full confidence that the telephone companies will abuse their monopoly, and be found to be a "common carrier" again, but in the meantime, they will invest in some infrastructure in an environment that *does* have competition. So let them invest and screw themselves, and in the long run, we will have the infrastructure installed that will allow better competition in the long run.

I would care but...

[jasohill]

By the time there is only one Internet to rule them all, no one will be able to afford it. We'll also be swearing that war is peace, or some junk like that.

Not a good thing

[gomaze]

This is going to only going to create local monopoly providers. I work for a small, state of michigan only internet provider. That has been around for 8 years. We have started servicing DSL and it is exploding.

People are coming to us because they dont have to call flippin India to get tech support and they know we are a locally owned family company. We can provide DSL for $20 a month for a year contract and after you add the taxes and charges of SBC you are at that or over it.

It is times like this why I shake my head and ask why the rebulican party wants to kill local businesses, seeing that is what they say they stand for.
----
Gomaze

Re:Not a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

why the rebulican party wants to kill local businesses, seeing that is what they say they stand for

how many small buisness owners are in congress ?
how many millionaires are in congress ?

the USGov has never been about small biz, its about large companies making billions of dollars profit by ripping off its dumbass population, they get to live in luxury you dont, get it ?

Re:Not a good thing

[darkonc]

Time to go to your customers and say "this is what the supposedly 'good for business' Republicans are about to do to you. Time to start railing at them now."

When people get their heads directly kicked in, they really can raise a ruckus.
You have a year to force this decision to be reversed.

Re:Not a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It is times like this why I shake my head and ask why the rebulican party wants to kill local businesses, seeing that is what they say they stand for.

The GOP is supposed to be about small government, not small business.

Although lately government has been growing exponentially.

Re:Not a good thing

[nagora]

why the rebulican party wants to kill local businesses, seeing that is what they say they stand for

No, the republican party stands for the republican party, that's all. Professional politicians are the last people you should turn to to run a country.

TWW

Re:Not a good thing

[timeOday]

Yes, my first thought was that this might NOT be so good for the copper network owners who are probably behind it.

Before, DSL had an advantage over Cable - you could shop around for an ISP with good policies and service. Not anymore! The Cable companies must be breathing a big sigh of relief that the FCC decided to kill off all the young, hungry competition. Now it's a boxing match between a pair of fat old geezers.

At a personal level, I hope you don't lose your job!

Re:Not a good thing

[gomaze]

I have never been a republican or have believed in their standings. I do know that when W. went for re-election that he campained on small business when ever he was asked about jobs. I know that was a dark day in US history when he came back for round two but still. They only way I can see to stoping this is getting the mass public to boycot the Telcos but that will never happen. It will be interresting how this all finishes playing out.

Re:Not a good thing

[frizop]

The problem with this is the FCC has put similar restrictions on resale telephone lines as well. Meaning, the small guy can't resell dial tone to customers that they don't own the copper too without one of the bells or SBC or whoever, gouging them out the ears. The FCC has been making moves like this for years, that is, submitting to the big Telco's and doing whatever they say to do. I can only hope that cable ends up being an even better medium to dial tone to create better competition.

Oh, I work for one of those small Telco's that is loosing half their revenue because of these sorts of FCC shenanigans. Hundreds of people lost there jobs, the company went thru a sort of downsizing, and were forced... forced mind you to lay down fiber to get video customers.

Re:Not a good thing

[nagora]

I do know that when W. went for re-election that he campained on small business when ever he was asked about jobs.

Well, the day the electorate votes based on what people do rather than what they say they do democracy might actually break out somewhere.

Re:Not a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the day the electorate votes based on what people do rather than what they say they do

huh?

Re:Not a good thing

[ciscoguy01]

Yeah, forced to lay down fiber. Your company has the right of way, you are the only one who *can* put in that fiber. You got utility easements from us *free*.

I hope you put in lots of fiber and provide great service, in that case you might survive. ILECs have screwed us around for years.

First there was ISDN which we would have all subscribed to except for that the telcos insisted on metering it. We didn't want any metered data, so is there much ISDN now? Nope.

Then DSL and they dragged their feet getting it installed for *years* so they wouldn't interfere with their lucrative ISDN and T1 service.

Now, all that is over and the ILECs are full speed ahead installing DSL, and lobbying the FCC to get rid of their pesky competitors, the ones who wanted to rent their copper plant at inflated prices to provide DSL service we actually wanted, in competition to the crappy DSL service the telcos wanted to sell us. The one with a stinking PPPOE dialer to connect to an always on connection. Ridiculous.

BTW, that copper plant? WE (ratepayers) PAID THEM TO INSTALL and MAINTAIN it. It should be *OURS*. They were regulated public utilities and they got paid handsomely for all that, and we had no alternative.

Now they can see the handwriting on the wall. We are all avoiding any long distance on the landline phone, since who wants to pay for that? So they make no money on LD. We have VOIP, cellphones, satellite TV.

The ILECs should be nice to us. We just don't need them anymore.

Re:Not a good thing

[0x0000]

It is times like this why I shake my head and ask why the rebulican party wants to kill local businesses, seeing that is what they say they stand for.

iirc, Republicans have never been good for small business - sometimes good for the top 1 or 2% of mega-corps, but never for small business.

Besides, the Republicans must follow the natural cycle of all such totalitarian and tyrants: When they have run out of victims/enemies, they must turn on and devour themselves.

Republicans gorge on the blood of their own young. [see also: Iraq and Big Oil]

Of course, Democrats are not better - selling the souls of their young to appease the Republicans [see also: John Kerry and Hillary Clinton] ...

Equal footing my ass!

[Rhoon]

The FCC has finally reclassified broadband service, giving the baby bells and the cable companies what they've wanted for so long, equal footing with the ISPs

The existing model was equal footing. This gives them total control now; the ability to pull a Microsoft to drive the competition out.

Re:Equal footing my ass!

[bnitsua]

isn't microsoft part of their competition?
so they can drive microsoft out of the broadband business... interesting.

Other competitors?

[Infonaut]

It won't be so easy if all that's left is the local monoploy cable company and the local monopoly phone company.

I'm not sure either way on this one. The intent of the ruling is to allow differing technologies to compete with each other. It could be argued that by forcing Baby Bells to provide assistance to companies that compete with them in offering services, the Baby Bells have to assume an unfair burden.

But if DSL is just one technology. Already cable and DSL companies are locked in a heated battle over who will dominate residential broadband. Even if the local phone carrier and the local cable carrier are effectively monopolies, they're still in competition with each other, right?

DSL and cable aren't the only broadband technologies available now, and other players may try to come up with their own competing mechanisms.

I'm not saying that I know for sure that the ruling will enhance competition, or that the consumer will ultimately be best served by it. But I'm not sure that allowing the Baby Bells and cable companies to compete head to head in an unfettered fashion is such a bad thing.

If anything, I am more bothered by the fact that cable companies are provided local monopolies by municipal governments, which gives me no choice in cable access as a consumer. At least the Baby Bells are no longer truly "regional" in that they can all compete with each other for local and long distance services, as well as DSL and wireless.

Re:Other competitors?

[LostCluster]

If anything, I am more bothered by the fact that cable companies are provided local monopolies by municipal governments, which gives me no choice in cable access as a consumer.

I'm on the Cable Advisory Board in my hometown, and I'm 100% sure that the license we've issued to Comcast is non-exclusive. A second cable company could come to town and "overbuild" a second cable network, but we're not expecting anybody to come forward to do that anytime soon.

See, a second cable network would be great for consumers, but a disaster financially for the investors. There's not much a new cable network can do that Comcast can't do with their existing network too. The competitor would have no hope of capturing more than 50% of the city's cable-subscribing population, and would have to start on day one with Comcast holding a 100%-to-0% head start. Huge investment, not much reward when compared to the potential wiring up an area of the country that isn't served with cable.

Your cable company is a monopoly by default. There's no barrier preventing somebody from wiring up another set of cables, other than the fact that it'd be a stupid idea.

Re:Other competitors?

[rollingcalf]

"I'm on the Cable Advisory Board in my hometown, and I'm 100% sure that the license we've issued to Comcast is non-exclusive."

And I'm 100% sure that unless your hometown just started having cable TV less than 10 years ago, the original license to Comcast was monopolistic (even though it may be currently non-exclusive).

Re:Other competitors?

[DavidTC]

Even if the local phone carrier and the local cable carrier are effectively monopolies, they're still in competition with each other, right?

Unless they're the the same company.

Re:Other competitors?

[spisska]

But if DSL is just one technology. Already cable and DSL companies are locked in a heated battle over who will dominate residential broadband. Even if the local phone carrier and the local cable carrier are effectively monopolies, they're still in competition with each other, right?

Yes, and a long-distance bus company is in competition with an airline. But imagine if the Commerce Dept decided that Delta Airlines had the exclusive right to operate planes out of Atlanta. Other companies could negotiate deals with Delta on an individual basis, but there would be no base price that all companies would be subject to, and a single corportate entity would run both the physical infrastructure (airport) and the trasport operation (airline).

Now imagine that Commerce granted the same exclusive right to operate busses on on Interstate Highways to Greyhound. Sure, someone else could negotiate a deal with Greyhound and buy a bunch of busses, but again, this would be case-by-case, not by means of an open reference price.

Need to get out of Atlata? It's either Delta or Greyhound. Competition?

Of course, Commerce would base their decision on the idea that it really would be good for consumers by driving innovation(!). If I'm determined to run a transport company but am blocked by the incumbents from using either the airport or the highways, then for sure I'll have my hydrogen-powered hover taxis running in no time. Thank goodness for competition.

The analogy is a bit of a stretch, but Verizon had as much to do with the building of the POTS network as Grehound had to do with the construction of the interstate highway system.

This decision (and the earlier one regarding cable companies) gives the incumbents control over what goes into to the pipe, as well as the pipe itself. This works fine with a heavily regulated utility like water and sewage, since everyone wants basically the same service -- the taps work and the toilet flushes. But it doesn't work with data, where people's goals can be entirely different.

I don't subscribe to cable because I won't pay $50/month for the few channels that I want, all of which are supported with advertisements. Similarly, I don't want my DSL bill to subsidize the creation and operation of services that I'm not intrested in. As long as the lines are open, I can find a provider who will create a package based on my needs, not their own. For example, maybe I don't need a superfat pipe, but I do need a static IP. I'm not willing to pay extra so that Verizon has cash for FTTH.

Re:Other competitors?

[Infonaut]

Good points indeed. Thanks for the analysis. The part of me that dislikes both SBC and Comcast (the two big players in Silicon Valley) agrees with what you're saying.

Your point about Verizon not being part of the building of the POTS network is well taken, though of course AT&T built it and was then broken up by the government, which in turn led to the powerhouse we know as Verizon.

I also appreciate your point about flexiblity. Had I needed a static IP I would definitely have gone with Speakeasy rather than SBC.

Perhaps looking at the telephone network as an essential infrastructure component like roads or airspace (the concept of which entailed some ferocious legal battling) that should be accessible to a broad range of commercial entities. The fact that Verizon, et. al. didn't actually create the POTS network but inherited it may offer evidence that providing cheap access to the network allows competitors to focus on value added services, which as you mentioned provide more choices for competitors and could possibly spawn the next big thing in telecommunications.

I'm just thinking out loud, trying to get a clear grasp of whose interests are at stake. I dislike strict "The Big Corporations vs. The Rest of Us" interpretations. I can see why the Baby Bells don't like having to subsidize their competitors, but I also see your point about the necessity of that competition.

From an economics point of view, communications networks are a fascinating subject.

Larry Magid

[jmichaelg]

Larry Magid said on CBS something to the effect that the telcos still have to allow access to the copper wire but don't have to allow access to the telco equipment. For all I know about DSL equipment, DSLAM may as well be what Mark McGuire hits.

Does Magid's comment make any sense to those of you who know how DSL works?

Re:Larry Magid

[jht]

That's supposed to be the case, and if it is still so then this ruling is a Good Thing. Basically, how I understand it (and I may very well be wrong), is that an ILEC is no longer obligated to sublet their ISP services to other companies. For instance, in a number of cities Earthlink sells a repackaged version of the ILEC's services - that will no longer be required. However, they still have to offer access to the dry copper in order to let CLECs operate. Covad, for instance, is a CLEC. As are most DSL providers.

What I'm a lot less clear on is whether "line sharing" will still be OK - right now, for instance, my Speakeasy service is operating split on my Verizon line, via equipment co-located at my CO. Will that state of affairs continue, or will Speakeasy have to lease a wire from Verizon in it's entirety? The other variable will be what happens when Verizon gets FIOS deployed - will there still be a place for the CLECs at that point?

I suspect so, because it helps Verizon politically to say "look - we've got competition!".

Re:Larry Magid

[suitepotato]

The majority of competitive DSL ISP offerings are through CLECs, which are Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Should the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) be required to keep their copper open to CLECs, then competitive DSL will still be an option should any CLEC choose to pay for the co-location, backhaul, per line cost, etc.

It makes no financial sense whatsoever to eliminate CLECs from the copper/fiber as they PAY the ILECs for the access/maintenance and always have. The majority of Speakeasy lines are through COVAD (properly capitalized, it is an acronym, COpper Value Added Distributor) if I am not mistaken. However, there really isn't a lot of money to be made at consumer DSL as a CLEC and acting as an ISP over ILEC DSL set-ups is more cost effective. This ruling eliminates the requirement that the ILECs open up their DSLAMs to other ISPs but it does not invalidate the existing contracts. Merely means that the ILECs will have supreme latitude in renegotiation at the contract's expiration. Don't like their terms? Tough.

But all those Speakeasy over COVAD lines aren't going anywhere. Most likely, they will have to do some hard thinking and probably look at partnering with CLECs.

BTW, DSLAM means DSL Access Multiplexor. These are where all the DSL lines terminate and aggregate first and then hand off usually via Fast Ethernet or DS-3 to a switch/router. CLECs may have one or several at a colocation. Some use multiple kinds and some use one kind. See Paradyne, Copper Mountain, Cisco, Lucent, Alcatel for DSLAM models availible.

Re:Larry Magid

[quantum bit]

What I'm a lot less clear on is whether "line sharing" will still be OK - right now, for instance, my Speakeasy service is operating split on my Verizon line, via equipment co-located at my CO. Will that state of affairs continue, or will Speakeasy have to lease a wire from Verizon in it's entirety? The other variable will be what happens when Verizon gets FIOS deployed - will there still be a place for the CLECs at that point?

Well, it's in the telcos best interest if they continue to allow that... Right now I have SBC for local service and line-share Speakeasy DSL on that.

SBC may decide they want to prohibit line-sharing with CLECs, either directly or by making it too expensive for them. In that case, I'll just drop the SBC service, let Speakeasy have the line entirely to themselves, and try out that Speakeasy VoIP servce they've been advertising.

Before the telcos rejoice too much about a possible broadband monopoly, they would do well to remember that they now have competition for POTS as well. Between VoIP and cell providers it's not too difficult to cut them out of the loop entirely if they get too out of line.

Re:Larry Magid

[quantum bit]

BTW, DSLAM means DSL Access Multiplexor. These are where all the DSL lines terminate...

At least they don't insisit on incorrectly calling it a "modem", like the devices at the customer's endpoint which are usually ATM bridges or often even full routers.

Re:Larry Magid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Here's the deal, handwaving a lot of stuff for the sake of comprehensibility:

if you have DSL, your phone line doesn't just go to an old-fashioned phone switch, but to a DSLAM. What a DSLAM does is to split out the two signals (DSL and voice) and send each in the proper direction.

Right now, the phone companies own the DSLAMs, and program them so that DSL customers who are NOT their own customers get their data sent to the relevant ISP's network.

With this change, instead of someone just reprogramming a DSLAM to get your data going in the right direction, the ISP will have to have their very own DSLAM in the phone company central office, to which you're hooked.

This is not good news, because:
a) DSLAMs are expensive
b) in a lot of these central offices, there's no room
c) if there is room, there's no provision for other people's kit
d) Now instead of just twiddling bits to provision someone, some poor telco monkey (because they won't allow anyone else to get in there and do it) will have to grab a wire (the right wire!) and physically reconnect it to the right piece of other equipment.

The chance for fuckups, the delay waiting for on-the-spot physical involvement (because we're talking about literal copper loops here) and so on is all a huge mess.

Re:Larry Magid

[unitron]

"In that case, I'll just drop the SBC service, let Speakeasy have the line entirely to themselves..."

What line? The copper pair that runs to your house? I suspect that SBC owns that, and that you won't be getting anything over it they don't allow you to have. If you want VOIP you'll probably have to get a cable modem.

Oh joy!

[darkonc]

So much for market forces, eh?
Adam Smith considered 'the free market' to be a good number of small merchants. Big business produces the same sorts of centralized stupidity as big government -- especially when it has a (pseudo) monopoly.

Re:Oh joy!

[drmerope]

Equally important: he advocated "hands-off" in part because of businesses' tendancy to influence government in to doing the wrong things. Remember: Adam Smith's target was mercantialism which as a policy was in fact that darling of merchants among others.

The real reason this happened

[nurb432]

IS not to protect consumers.

The dropping of common carrier status also removes any protection of content. Now the ISP will be liable for content that passes over their lines.

The 'consumer' no longer will have a right to privacy, since its no longer considered 'telecommunications', which was protected.

So its not about protecting us, its about controlling and monitoring us. Oh, and if it happens to make the big campaign contributors a few bucks along the way, all the better.

Re:The real reason this happened

[fulldecent]

Are you implying that DSL users are immediately and globally immune of any lawsuit from the RIAA?

Re:The real reason this happened

[Anonymous Coward]

No. What he's saying is that, with common carrier status, the ISP is not themselves liable for what you do over their lines. Without common carrier status, they [b]are[/b] liable, and thus must police what you do far more stringently than if they were common carrier.

Re:The real reason this happened

[qeveren]

Not at all. DSL users to violate copyright law would still be culpable, but now, so would their ISP.

Re:The real reason this happened

[Panaflex]

Also to mention the fact that this may have a profound effect on the privacy of said DSL lines. Most of the laws concerning privacy were aimed at telecommunications. What laws protect an "information service" legally anyway, other than copyright and trademark?

-Pan

Why was the press's initial reaction so positive?

[rcw-home]

I've been watching the stories on this since they started hitting news.google.com. Most of the initial headlines were "FCC eases rules" or "Phone companies get internet relief".

Is it unreasonable to expect headlines like "Local ISPs across the country doomed"? Even if the press doesn't care about the ISPs, that's a lot of people who will probably be out of work soon, and employment trends generally are something the press cares about.

I hate this ruling for several reasons:

• It's the FCC wantonly overriding Congress. The line-sharing rules were set up by Congress as a main purpose, perhaps the main purpose of the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act.
  
• The wiring that the phone companies pretend is theirs alone really belongs to the people. It's common infrastructure - if everyone had to attempt to duplicate it to compete, the result would be an expensive mess.
  
• It reduces us to a handful of choices for ISPs. The cable company, the phone company, maybe a WiMax ISP, some form of satellite access, etc. Those of us who consciously chose to buy our DSL service from a competitor do it for the markedly better customer service and for more options.
  

I think that the press is slowly starting to pick that up, thanks in part to organizations such as the Consumers Union. I hope the FCC is forced to reconsider. If they don't, I hope the local ISPs take the initiative to build some new infrastructure of their own (and I hope it's something so clearly better that it's not just an expensive mess).

Changes everyone's incentives

[blackhedd]

I'm not sure about the underlying reasoning here- FCC has changed a lot since Mike Powell left. They may have decided that preventing anticompetitive behavior is too much intereference in free markets, although that hasn't often stopped them before.

But it is obvious that this move will constrain DSL's quality and price advantages. I have to suffer with Verizon and I'm in PAIN everytime I use it and everytime I see my bill. Things will only get worse. What the hell is everyone waiting for? Oh right, I forgot, you're waiting for SOMEONE ELSE to take the risk.

Every other country in the world has far better broadband infrastructure than the US, and it's because of the behavior of our monopoly providers.

I hope this will finally provide an incentive for metropolitan wifi providers and cable vendors to decide upon and implement a reasonable business model. Guys, it isn't rocket science, and it's not going to take anything like the irrational capital-deployment decisions that resulted in the long-haul-fiber overbuild.

Re:Changes everyone's incentives

[saleenS281]

Verizon had monopoly status for a LONG time, and they also promise fiber to every home for a LONG TIME, and never came through. It's not because they had to share, it's because they POCKETED the BILLIONS of dollars they got from the government to make sure that fiber rollout occured. If we as citizens are footing the damn bill for this fiber rollout I don't really give a shit if verizon wants to share or not, we paid for it, we can use it how we want.

Re:Changes everyone's incentives

[blackhedd]

I'm probably stepping in shit here (and I happen to HATE Verizon), but I need to understand your argument better.
>>>they POCKETED the BILLIONS of dollars they got from the government to make sure that fiber rollout occured [sic]
Are you talking about the money they earn as a result of their protected monopoly position? Verizon and other RBOCs are under no statutory obligation to run fiber to everyone's home. Are you saying that they have received taxpayer funds in order to do this?

What I'm saying is that we can't rely on the RBOCs to provide any kind of fast, cheap DSL service because it's not in their interest to do so. And that means someone else needs to step up and do it. The FCC's action in effect means (for reasons having nothing to do with technology) that DSL will not be the technology that meets this need.

Re:Changes everyone's incentives

[saleenS281]

No, I'm talking about the billions the government of PA literally gave them SPECIFICALLY for fiber rollout.

http://www.teletruth.org/PennBroadbandScam.html

They ARE under obligation when they take money from the government in exchange for doing it. If you claim they are not, I'm apparently going to have to start my own "telecommunications company", promise to rollout fiber for the government, and then buy myself a couple nice houses and every exotic car I've ever dreamed about.

Re:Changes everyone's incentives

[blackhedd]

As far as starting up your own telco, well that's pretty close to what I was hoping to hear! The RBOCs aren't here to help us or anyone but themselves. I want to see ingenious solutions from other entities. Show me your bizplan, I might invest in you.

You cite an interesting document and I will read it carefully (remember, I hate the telcos as much as anyone). But this document (on first reading) refers only to actions by the Pennsylvania PUC, not the federal FCC. Local utility commissions have a decades-long history of making fucked-up, idiotic, stupid deals that the telcos can easily take advantage of. I'd have to read the statute but I'll just bet that there are no specific remedies built into it which will require Verizon to give back something in return for not meeting some expectation about fiber-to-the-home which was written in 1994, when T3 lines cost $45,000/month. And even if there are, "conditions have changed" so Verizon goes to court and ties it all up for a few decades. This is not to defend Verizon but to rap the Pa PUC for not writing a stronger deal.

But fiber-to-the-home is not the only solution for broadband, and it's probably not the best, given the unfavorable economics and time-scales. Come up with something better!

The fiber rollout I mentioned in my original post was the long-haul fiber rollout which was a historic case of over-investment by stupid investors who threw away their own money to build an asset which to this day is no more than 5% utilized.

Avoiding degraded service

[happyEverGeek]

My current ISP usually gets 5 out of 5 for their customer service. The phone company has spent 20 years proving they average 2 out of five.

Phone company, understand this: kill my ISP, and you'll never again see one of my bytes on your line to my house. I'll find another way.

That's a promise.

Anybody else feel the same way? Write your congressman. Maybe it's time for an email campaign.

Re:Avoiding degraded service

[Anonymous Coward]

"Phone company, understand this: kill my ISP, and you'll never again see one of my bytes on your line to my house. I'll find another way."

yep i'd do without internet, phone service, electricity, running water, & breathable air before i sent another penny to SBC.

now THATS customer satisfaction.

Re:Avoiding degraded service

[ultranova]

Anybody else feel the same way? Write your congressman. Maybe it's time for an email campaign.

Unfortunately, you can't enclose campaign contributions in emails, so they won't have any effect.

Re:Avoiding degraded service

[happyEverGeek]

Unfortunately, you can't enclose campaign contributions in emails, so they won't have any effect.

The owners of the web sites below would beg to differ. I believe they have enough successful email campaigns under their belts to know. I have signed petitions online with MoveOn.org then had them reply a couple weeks later that the petition was successful.

• MoveOn.org - most famous for their anti-Bush efforts.
• Defenders of Wildlife - bringing pressure on Exxon and others who would destroy our ecosphere for profit.

Obligatory Response

[No Such Agency]

Libertarian capitalism, like communism, looks good on paper but fails utterly in reality.

I'll save all the 14-year-old armchair Libertarians, whose parents pay for their internet access, some effort by saying "Shut Up, Hippy".

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[kalidasa]

. Most of the initial headlines were "FCC eases rules" or "Phone companies get internet relief".

The news outlets are writing the story because they're getting faxed press releases from the telcos, and therefore are accepting the Telcos' spin.

why...

[tehwebguy]

those fucking niggers!!

Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI

[DannyO152]

Here's the theory, in perfunctory fashion, because I don't buy it. Broadband uptake in the US is not going as quickly as somebody wants. Aha! the FCC reasons (helped by whispers in the ear), it must be because the owners of phone lines won't upgrade them unless they get the full return of their investment. So if the Baby Bells own and maintain the lines, the Baby Bells are granted full control over how much they charge other information service providers, and, in order to make negotiations between the Baby Bells and indy DSLs more equitable, the Baby Bells can now walk away and say no soup for you, More return on investment means more investment in infrastructure and more supply means more demand. Entry into the brand new beautiful broadband world accelerates.

And some folks at SBC and Verizon get together with their lobbyists and a few of their contacts in Congress and the Executive, and tilt many a glass in honor of these days in the new gilded age.

Re:Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI

[Ghost-in-the-shell]

"More return on investment means more investment in infrastructure and more supply means more demand."

Don't you really mean more return on investment means more profit for shareholders? I seriously doubt the telco's will invest further in to their networks (after the huge expansion that happened during the dot Com days) until buiness customers demand more services. Since the average DSL connection is sufficent for home use, I doubt you will see any affects on that service till the technology demands higher service and better rates.

Re:Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI

[Anonymous Coward]

> more supply means more demand

Please read economics 101. Demand implies supply, but not the other way round.

Re:Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read economics 101. Demand implies supply, but not the other way round.

Congratulations genius, you got the point.

Re:Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI

[T-Ranger]

Well, the expansion in the .com days was backbone (dark) fiber. There is still the job of upgrading the "last mile", which partialy means running fiber out to the street corner, not to mention attaching 95% of that fiber up to switches/routers/whatever. If this ruling actualy makes any difference or not is yet to be sceen doesnt change the fact that the infastructure is not "where it should be".. at least in many places not up to the level of technology that is commercialy available.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[General Wesc]

The wiring that the phone companies pretend is theirs alone really belongs to the people. It's common infrastructure - if everyone had to attempt to duplicate it to compete, the result would be an expensive mess.

Don't take this the wrong way--I'm honestly curious--but is this a non-sequiter, or am I misinterpreting it? If I build something other people can't easily duplicate, that doesn't make my product common infrastructure.

I'm depressing ignorant of this subject matter, but if it's public infrastructure, shouldn't that be simply because it's built on public land (or under random people's front yards)?

I want it to be open, so we have lots of ISPs to choose from, but I'm not willing to force privately-funded stuff to be forced open by the government unless there's a better justification than 'people will be better off'. I'd benefit from free [insert commercial project here].

Build more networks!

[Brian Stretch]

You want a better network than the telcos and cable companies provide? Build one. Roll out new FTTH. Or wireless. Or carrier pigeon. Whatever. This is the Internet, a network of networks. We can build more than one.

Don't force another company that spent $millions or $billions on their network to "share" with their competitors at government-dictated rates. The expense is in the network, not the backend and marketing layers. I wouldn't spend $gigabucks building new plant if I knew the government was going to force me to hand it over to competitors either.

Re:Build more networks!

[syntaxglitch]

I wouldn't spend $gigabucks building new plant if I knew the government was going to force me to hand it over to competitors either.

Well, obviously. If you were a major corporation you wouldn't spend $gigabucks on a new plant anyways. You'd go begging to the government and they'd hand out tax dollars as corporate welfare to fund the plant.

Most of the griping here seems to be about the fact that the lines themselves were largely funded by tax money and built on public land. On the other hand, at least some people are saying that the ruling only applies to certain hardware, not the lines themselves, in which case 90% of the fuss is irrelevant nonsense...

Re:Build more networks!

[$1uck]

You are joking right? How does one go about building a fiber network? How would anyone go about creating a new network with out interferring in private/public space? (how would you go about creating a new Highway system?). Some things are not feasible with out the use of the govt and ED. Things like sewage systems, roads, power lines etc. Personally I think the government should provide a network much the same way it has provided free-ways. I know people will bitch "the govt sucks provides shitty service" especially libertarians, but there are some tasks the govt is cut out for and I think one of them is providing access to markets (by foot/car roads or through the internet). Besides weren't the internets started by the US govt... So who wants to run on the platform of gigabyte ethernet into everyhome?

Re:Build more networks!

[jyoull]

Your argument sounds good in theory, but that's not how it happened.

Telcos were legal monopolies for many years, in exchange for doing the work (NOT "taking the risk") to build out the infrastructure. The customers paid for that build-out with higher-than-necessary rates (had there been competition), all manner of rules about where you could get a telephone (from the phone company, only), how you could get a phone (rentals only, no purchases), and on and on.

During that period many miles of copper and fiber were rolled out, but also innovation was stymied (for example, ISDN was stifled in the US while Europe had it for ages as an everyday service), and all our grannies paid a big chunk of their social security money each month to rent that princess phone next to the bed (ac adapter and "night light" option extra).

So don't discuss "forcing a company to share" something that they didn't really build but by incentives granted by the same people who now want to use that which was built.

Re:Build more networks!

[dniq]

And where do you think those gigabucks came from?

Re:Build more networks!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really the heart of the issue here at hand. Qwest for example is required to provide access to lines and equipment to its competitors and is also tasked with the upkeep and maintenance of all of the lines and service connections.

This is stifling innovation. Where is the incentive to upgrade the network or lay fiber optic cable if I have to front the cash for the network, but all of my competition gets regulated access?

There is no incentive and I still have corroded copper wire running to my house.

Re:Build more networks!

[anthony_dipierro]

You want a better network than the telcos and cable companies provide?

Not really. I want a cheaper network than the telcos and cable companies provide.

Build one.

Seriously though, how would I go about doing this? Who would I have to talk to to get access to the right of ways so I could lay or string cables? I'm not asking a rhetorical question, I really want to know.

Re:Build more networks!

[Brian Stretch]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Let's say we want FTTH Internet service. Guess what, that means ripping out the old "monopoly" copper network or building around it. The existing telcos and cable companies have the advantage of being already there and financial might but they're not invincible, especially if they're incompetent and especially if we aren't foolish enough to allow the extension of their legal monopoly to data networks (which I don't see happening). Streamlining the right-of-way regs for laying new cable would be a good use of federal legislation; heck, there have been far worse abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause. (IANAL, but I'm guessing the feds would claim rights under the ICC to justify such a law.)

And then there's wireless...

Remember, the cable companies built their networks from scratch, what, 20 years ago, give or take? Before then there was no Comcast/etc. It could be done again with data. Just don't grant legal monopolies this time!

Re:Build more networks!

[The Breeze]

Yeah, they spent $millions or $billions, sure. Over 100 years. And most of those $millions or $billions were MATCHED with taxpayer dollars - incentives, free gifts of right-of-way, etc. The telephone network was built with the help of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, over DECADES. It could not be "rebuilt" by any competitor, no matter how well financed, in anything less than another few decades - and even then, they most likely would not be able to legally acquire the same rights-of-way that were given to the telco when it was a monopoly.

You want to be a free-market capitalist? Fine, so do I. In a free market, you have to pay for value received. The telcos want a monopoly over their partially-taxpayer funded network? No problem. Let's calculate how much taxpayer support they've received over the past 100 years, bill them, with interest, and then they can be allowed to have exclusive control over their lines.

THAT'S free market. What the FCC has just done is corporate welfare - big companies sucking off of the public tit and pushing the smaller puppies away.

Re:Build more networks!

[bani]

You can't.

Try to roll out FTTH, watch the ILECs claim exclusive right-of-way, throw up regulatory roadblocks, file frivolous lawsuits, and generally keep you too busy to actually build your FTTH. That is if they dont sue you into oblivion first. That is if the cable company hasnt got to you first.

Try the same with wireless. Watch the ILECs do the exact same thing.

I'd expect the ILECs would fight carrier pigeon if they could figure a way.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[Darth_Burrito]

Is it unreasonable to expect headlines like "Local ISPs across the country doomed"?

Maybe the owners of many news agencies have investments in things like major ISPs. Take Time Warner for example. Could any of that news be coming over from a source like Yahoo as in SBC/Yahoo DSL?

I'm tired of this.

[weavermatic]

I'm not just going to sit around the office and put up with this anymore. I'm writing my local TV stations and newspaper. I also have a friend who did some campaign organization for Kerry up here around Seattle and I'll see if there is anything she can do to help organize something going against this. I'm also interested in the possibility of a Public Broadcast TV news show that reports on all types of issues like this that normally get back-burnered by pointless stories like that whole Aruba waste of time.

Re:I'm tired of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

why do democrats always give handouts? I work for my money and I don't want a democrat giving it out to people that don't work.

Re:I'm tired of this.

[Pollardito]

why do democrats always give handouts? I work for my money and I don't want a democrat giving it out to people that don't work.

EXACTLY! stop giving handouts to the phone companies, let them get a job and pay their own way

Perhaps more long-term effects

[ZPO]

It seems unclear from the press release whether the upcoming R&O, which doesn't seem to have been published yet, removes the requirement for ILECs to share copper pairs as UNEs or simply removed the requirement to share DSLAM ports as UNEs.

I find this section from the press release more chilling on a long-term basis:
"The Order also requires facilities-based providers to contribute to existing universal service mechanisms based on their current levels of reported revenues for the DSL transmission for a 270-day period after the effective date of the Order or until the Commission adopts new contribution rules, whichever occurs earlier. If the Commission is unable to complete new contribution rules within the 270-day period, the Commission will take whatever action is necessary to preserve existing funding levels, including extending the 270-day period or expanding the contribution base."

(Emphasis Added)

This is the FCC putting everyone on notice that they may expand the list of services/providers which pay into USF. That is a step that I don't want to see happen. While USF is a nice theory, in practice it is used as a method to defray costs for the incumbent telcos in serving desired markets. Can anyone provide several examples of rural CLECs or WISPs receiving USF dollars to support their efforts?

Re:Perhaps more long-term effects

[spisska]

While USF is a nice theory, in practice it is used as a method to defray costs for the incumbent telcos in serving desired markets. Can anyone provide several examples of rural CLECs or WISPs receiving USF dollars to support their efforts?

More to the point, can anyone offer examples of USF money going to the actual deplyoment of new lines? As fas as I can see, there's lots of new cell towers (with much higher margins) going up in rural America, but very little new wired infrastructure.

Erm...

[Kandenshi]

They probably would let you use their phones Sc00ter, but it's an EMERGENCY. Better all around if you don't have to run down the street, knocking on doors and waiting for people to come to answer them. The cells ought to help a bit though eh?

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[Anonymous Coward]

I want it to be open, so we have lots of ISPs to choose from, but I'm not willing to force privately-funded stuff to be forced open by the government unless there's a better justification than 'people will be better off'. I'd benefit from free [insert commercial project here

First let me just start by quoting the internet policy document linked, and laugh out loud a little.

It first tries to put out some reasonable, sensible goals for the FCC.

Then it states, "Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles
into its ongoing policymaking activities."

Sure it will.. sure.

Apparently, its not just about choice. They are now "Information services" and not subject to common carrier rules.. but are they subject to common carrier protections? I guess we'll pretend they are for a bit, but it probably wont take long for the RIAA, MPAA, CMAA (Crazy mothers of America Association) to set someone up the lawsuit, to phrase a cliche.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[rcw-home]

If I build something other people can't easily duplicate, that doesn't make my product common infrastructure.

However, if you do it because you are a government-sanctioned monopoly with sole rights to do it (in some areas) and a government mandate to do it, and you do it partially with government money, partially with your monopoly status, then the situation changes. You can't maintain the 'privately-funded stuff' argument when your private corporation has had special legal status to be the only game in town for 100 years.

The phone companies are here to serve us. Not the other way around. The rules need to reflect that. Compare it to the power/water/sewer/postal monopolies and the government regulation needed to keep that common infrastructure working for us.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[Thing 1]

maybe a WiMax ISP

Hopefully this will start taking off. At 300', you need a whole lot of them. At 30 miles, "one per city" is often good enough.

Cory Doctorow's latest novel, "Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town" has a sub-plot about unwiring the entire town. It's not the first place I've seen such an idea, and it worked well with the story. Remember to switch all your nodes to ParasiteNet!

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[DavidTC]

It's not even privately funded in many cases.

Witness the various taxes (Yes, government taxes) that were put on the phone bills, and then given back to the phone company to built infrastructure for, for example, rural areas. A large amount of 'taxes' on your phone bill are handed directly back to the phone company with the requirement they use it in a certain way, usually to do with infrastructure.

Telephone wires have always been treated as a public good, and the government has invested quite a lot of money into them, often times putting up the poles or digging the holes as part of road construction at no cost to the phone company. Or letting them have access to government areas...every public subway system in the world has telephone wires running through it at some point, and the telephone company has keys and doesn't even have to go through the government.

But, anyway, the mere right to run wires over public and private land is worth millions in any community. Actually, it's probably literally priceless, as they couldn't purchase all the rights they need.

Phone companies have no right to whine they have to share the wires.

Interesting set of stories...

[solune]

Coupled with this story makes for intriguing imaginations of backroom deals.

It'd be a lot easier to get a variety of providers that just benefitted from this ruling to build these back doors. "We gave you one, now you give us one."

Wrapped in the flag, it's a pretty present for the patriotic consumer. "Verizon is doing its part to protect America from terrorism. By installing a back door for feds..."

Also, in the last few years, the gov'ment has been reformulating statistics (un-employment, etc) invariably using some figure that was unavailable in previous calculations making comparisons difficult. This logic could, conceivebly, be applied to the definition of "information carrying mediums"--or any other communication the FCC may wish to regulate.

Say, Voip, for instance. Is it data, and can be blocked by telco networks, or is it "telecomunications?"

Perhaps this quote from Wi-Fi planet may shed some light to what's really going on: "I look forward to creating clear rules for all IP-enabled services." --Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Energy and commerce Committee.

Tin Foil Hat Theory

[BeBoxer]

Anybody else think that the primary driver behind this ruling is CALEA and not "competition" at all? Just think how much easier it will be to implement the new wiretap requirements without having to deal with the hundreds or thousands of local ISPs. Some of which may be owned by people who may have moral objections to wiretaps. Or may be small enough that the operators actually know their customers and may be tempted to tip them off.

Instead they can deal with maybe a dozen or so mega corporations. The size of which helps to ensure an amoral compliance. Most (all?) of which are already under FCC regulation which helps ensure the government has a suitably free hand to punish them should they step out of line. Where every customer is nothing more than a number which the corporation has no allegence to.

It's not like this would be the first time those in power were less than honest about their motivations behind a policy.

Screwed either way

[SCHecklerX]

Sure, we could use VOIP services on cable broadband instead, but the local cable companies are also a monopoly, and have had the freedom to screw their customers as the phone companies now have again the entire time.

It would have been nice if instead the cable companies had been regulated. Then I might not now be paying ridiculous fees for a 'commercial' account just so that I can host my own *personal* mail and web servers.

Competition...

[e12532]

Leased loops are not going away. The telcos still have to provide access to the dry copper going out to customer locations. This ruling simply says that the telcos no longer have to provide the actual service on these copper pairs. I can see how in some areas this will be devastating. The company I work for, fortunately, has enough vision that they've seen this coming. For the past several months we've been implementing a solution using Ciena networks equipment that will allow us to continue providing dial tone as well as DSL to formerly resold SBC and Bell South customers. Basically instead of the copper getting plugged into SBC / Bell South equipment it is physically moved into our collo equipment. This is actually better for our company, leasing a copper pair is far less expensive than just reselling DSL or local phone service, and it gives us the opportunity to grow into new service areas and offer price points we weren't able to meet previously.

Also, we've obtained a $100 million grant to develop fiber networks in three cities, over which we will be able to provide data, voice, and television services...

This ruling is just a kick in the arse of the small telcos who have been skimming profit from the large ones by just reselling service (they've been able to do this for around 5 years now)

As someone else said, the teat is being taken away, it's time for the small telcos to stand on their own two feet and invest in their own infrastructure...

Just my $.02

Re:Competition...

[haruchai]

Oh Jesus! What are you on? The vicious piranha aka small telcos mercilessly tearing into the soft, sweet flesh of the gentle, plankton-eating, giant whales aka big telcos?
C'mon, the big guys were soaking the consumers as much as they could, and not offering much in the way of innovative services unless forced. All the while they were sitting on an infrastructure largely paid for with public money and pocketing big bucks with shady accounting.
I recall a story about falsified depreciation of telco equipment that went back decades and was in the tens of billons $US.

Some whales aren't worth saving.

Re:Competition...

[Halvy]

Also, we've obtained a $100 million grant to develop fiber networks in three cities, over which we will be able to provide data, voice, and television services..

Hay buddy, tell me who you work for so I can make sure I DON'T move into any area you guys are working!

I mean, your mentioning of the $100 Million dollar *GRANT* you got.. TELLS IT ALL-- as to where your company is headed!!

This ruling is just a kick in the arse of the small telcos who have been skimming profit from the large ones by just reselling service (they've been able to do this for around 5 years now)

"Skimming"?!

I'd call it *re-selling* services that would NOT have been sold by the major telcos, IF it were not for these 'skimmers' (who are actually customers'like-me' who dont' want to deal with the major telcos for various reasons)!

Re:Competition...

[anthony_dipierro]

Basically instead of the copper getting plugged into SBC / Bell South equipment it is physically moved into our collo equipment. This is actually better for our company, leasing a copper pair is far less expensive than just reselling DSL or local phone service, and it gives us the opportunity to grow into new service areas and offer price points we weren't able to meet previously.

Don't you have to lease two copper pairs for every customer, though? One going from the customer to the CO, and then another going from the CO to you? Or are the phone companies required to give you access to colocate your equipment at the CO?

If it's the former, I imagine real estate near the CO must be rather expensive, since the farther you are from the CO, the fewer customers you can sell access to without reaching the distance limits of DSL.

Re:Competition...

[bani]

A $100 million grant? I'm sure the dollar bills are blinding you to the sheer hypocrisy of your post.

Then you criticize small companies of 'skimming profit' from large ones. Hah.

Your company is sucking cock, not teats. Your face is totally creamed with semen, and you seem to be enjoying it.

Re:Competition...

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you for being about the only one to know what this ruling means.

i also work for a facilities based clec.

what it means is the ILEC will no longer provide the dialtone over that shared line that also serves dsl.

it is basically saying, time to grow up you little leaches and become a facilities based clec. meaning get access to each Verizon CO in each city of interest. Real work.

just this spring we brought up our coppercom voice switch. lucent dacs. oc48 sonet network. blah blah blah. time to grow up.

Re:Competition...

[JamesKennemore]

I'd like to discuss this over e-mail. Please contact me.

Re:Competition...

[bani]

dont forget all the criminal convictions from qwest executives cooking the books. to the tune of several billion dollars.

people remember enron, but somehow forget qwest. and the qwest criminal convictions are still coming down to this day, years later after the first convictions were made.

Re:Competition...

[e12532]

ILECs are required to sublet us space... basically we have at a minimum one rack of equipment per (major) CO...

In the case of residential services, we'll basically place an order for the ILEC to take the twisted pair and punch it down to a "cross connect" pannel which is wired to our equipment.

Depending on the capacity we need at that collo, we'll range from several T1s up to a DS3 to do the long haul back to our CO...

As someone else pointed out, we're the ones providing the dialtone.

Re:Competition...

[Anonymous Coward]

ILECs are required to sublet us space...

Damn regulations. I hope you're not taking advantage of the ILECs by using this requirement. It's great to see someone standing on their own two feet and investing in their own infrastructure.

basically we have at a minimum one rack of equipment per (major) CO...

Oops.... so much for self sufficiency.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[rekoil]

You mentioned subway systems, which reminded me of how that can go wrong...ever notice that Verizon Wireless is the only cell carrier that has transmitters in Washington DC's Metro system? It's because Verizon (the phone company) simply won't let competing tower operators connect to their subway infrastructure.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[fishbowl]

> * It's the FCC wantonly overriding Congress

You've taken this to your Congressman?

If you can persuade Congress to accept the view that their authority has been subverted by an agency rule, they can fix it -- and they would be highly motivated to do so.

A possible solution:

[Banner]

The only reason I even -have- a landline to my house is so I can get DSL service. So as long as I got the land line I signed up for unlimited service, it's not that expensive.

Now if I can't get DSL, why do I need a landline? I'll just cancel it and use a cellphone.

That is the market pressure we can apply, and the one (hopefully) which can be used to bring the telco's to heel. They want us to buy phone service from them? Then they continue to give us the DSL access we want.

A lot of people are already forsaking landlines for Cell Phones. Without DSL, who really needs the telco's anymore?

Re:A possible solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people forget that without telcos infastructure that cellular and many other services would cease to work.

If the telco's shut off their switches just think about what services you would not have anymore.

Telcos deserve to be paid for traffic on their network, and a equal playing field.

Re:A possible solution:

[Halvy]

You can't be serious.

If the telco's shut off their switches just think about what services you would not have anymore.

If they even got NEAR to shutting us (all, or most people) down, we (the masses) or parts of the government would storm their centers, and turn the switches back on.

Telcos deserve to be paid for traffic on their network, and a equal playing field.

And I'm sure with opinions like that, the telocs would never think of 'pulling-the-plug' on you.

However, with my opinion.. well..

I believe the telcos (ceo's, upper managment, larges share holders etc) need to not only be removed (physically) from their jobs, but face criminal charges.

First, it is NOT 'their' network. It is a network that is on public land, used for the common good for all of the public (or is supposed to be).

And because of their long history of corruption and crime, they are no longer allowed to lay any claim to 'their' wires, switches, etc.

This may seem laffable to you, but what is/has happened the last 20 years, would have seemed very laffable 20 years ago as well.

Re:A possible solution:

[response3]

You like making calls on your cell phone to people on land lines? Guess who provides the connection to/from all those cell towers to the rest of the telephone network? Telcos do.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this ruling much either, but applying market pressure by switching to cell phones is misguided. Besides, the largest three cell providers (Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile) are all the results of mergers by either the Baby Bells or MCI, GTE. So in essence, if you boycott land lines, you move money from one funnel to the next, which all end up in the same pockets.

The good, the bad, and the ugly!

[coexistedNeuro]

Although I hate dealing with SBC and Verizon and such companies, I believe this is going to benefit other technologies other than DSL. I have a friend who bnow works for a Electric company in Cincinnati Ohio, he has been busier than ever installing Internet over power lines. The up/down streams are very good and in some ways better than cable. Now, WiMax has been growing in popularity as well being able to totally bypass all looping charges. Cable companies such as Timewarner Cable have been good to ok in my opinion. I believe DSL providers are going to see a slower growth in the DSL market and more people are going to move to these other connections for their internet. Heck it is almost cheaper for me to buy a Cell phone internet service with broadband speeds than to purchase the norm.

Not a near certainty.

[hackwrench]

In Milan, OH, where I am currently there is cable but not DSL.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[Achra]

Wow.
Well... I did say _near_. :)
This accounts for the 1/10% geographical area that is outside my normalcy margin.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[anthony_dipierro]

I live in Tampa, Florida, have cell phone service and EVDO, have the ability to get cable modem service, and can't get DSL (too far from the CO).

Re:Not a near certainty.

[Achra]

Hm. Perhaps I should reassess my theorum... I've never lived _in_ a city without having access to DSL, but have lived without access to cablemodem in nearly every place I've lived, so I was broadly generalizing... So, apparently, it is quite possible to have Cablemodem service without DSL. It would be interesting to hear from the original poster on the subject.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[anthony_dipierro]

I was very surprised when the phone company told me I couldn't have DSL. Also pissed off since I had specifically called and asked the phone company if I could get DSL before I signed the lease for this apartment. But I went to dslreports, and it says I'm 13195 feet from the CO, which is right around the limit.

Next time I move I guess I'm going to have to look at this map first.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[Savantissimo]

The limit is 18,000ft, not 13,000. (1472kbps down) Also, the wire length databases are often wrong, sometimes by miles. If you go for a lower speed and set a glite profile on the DSLAM port it will work to 20,000ft or more. If the wiring is thicker than normal it can go even farther. On unspliced 18ga wire I have seen it work out to 29,500ft. at full speed. Your NSP or LEC is dicking you around. Try to see if you can pay for an actual DSL tech to test your line with a proper testset (Sunrise- not Harris). Going through proper channels is likely to be frustrating - you need to escalate your complaint repeatedly through the telco hierarchy until you get someone who will do what you want. The other route is get in touch with a regular phone tech and get the number for a DSL tech. They are often the same people. If you can't get the test done as a favor, some have been known to take under-the-table compensation. You might also try calling the CO - the number is usually listed. Before disqualifying a line, a tech really should get not just the length but also check the line resistence at your NID with the line shorted at the CO coil; verify there are no removable bridged taps, DAMLs, interfering lines (T1s,etc.); and check for alternate pairs and crossbox routings.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[anthony_dipierro]

The limit is 18,000ft, not 13,000.

That's IDSL though, right? Anyway, what I read about Verizon (which services this place) was that their equipment was originally limited to 12,000 ft but that they were upgrading it to 15,000 ft.

Your NSP or LEC is dicking you around. Try to see if you can pay for an actual DSL tech to test your line with a proper testset (Sunrise- not Harris).

The thing is, I really don't care. I already have EVDO which is somewhat more expensive and has shitty ping times, but I can take it on the road with me, and I just bought a slim wireless-g card so that I can route the EVDO to the rest of the house so my girlfriend can use it. I'm not really interested in paying something like $65 a month for a phone line and DSL (and taxes). The only real advantage I'd have is that I can keep my desktop computer always connected, but since I have a VPS server online at a colo this isn't that big a deal. If I wind up really needing a real broadband connection I'll just go with cable modem.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[Savantissimo]

Well as long as that works for you... seems expensive, though. I don't know what kind of crappy DSLAMs Verizon runs, but the ADSL standard says that you should be able to get 15,000ft at 1.5-2Mbps even over 26ga wire. See http://www.dslforum.org/aboutdsl/adsl_tutorial.htm l.
I suspect that Verizon has a lot of thin wire, unreliable cable databases and wants to keep the downstream % of max bandwidth below some arbitrary number to reduce support costs. It's really shooting themselves in the foot because the area served goes up as the square of the distance from the CO, so they are giving up a lot of customers by being so conservative.

In my experience DSL is much more reliable than wireless or cable, but YMMV.

Re:Not a near certainty.

[anthony_dipierro]

In my experience DSL is much more reliable than wireless or cable, but YMMV.

I've used all three, and of them, only DSL has gone down for hours and even days at a time. When I had cable modem service a couple years ago it was rock solid. It'd slow down once in a while, but I never had it go down completely. My wireless connection is a bit flaky - sometimes the connection gets dropped - but I've never had it go down completely to where it wouldn't reconnect, at least not while I was in my apartment (which happens to be a stone's throw away from a cell phone tower). DSL was great when it worked, but every few months it'd just stop working completely for hours at a time, this was true through three different apartments that I've lived in.

I think it really depends on where you live, though.

Another tragically flawed idealist speaks...

[bechthros]

Nice troll, dude. I can't resist.

"it would be like the government forcing McDonald's to Serve food from Burger King, or Vice Versa."

Firstly, you're wrong because your analogy is specious. It wouldn't be like forcing McDonalds to SELL BK product, the CLEC's do a good job of selling the product. It would be more like, if burger ovens were incredibly expensive, and McDonalds owned 99% of them, forcing McDonalds to MAKE burgers for BK, which BK would then resell.

Secondly, you're wrong because Micky D's and the King are much more evenly matched as competitors than baby Bells and CLEC's are. Because it's not as prohibitively expensive to buy burger ovens as it is to lay copper wire over an entire city, county, state or nation.

Thirdly, I hope you realize you just used "McDonalds" and "unconstitutional" in the same thought. That alone should give you some pause - but you're obviously a zealot, so it probably won't.

"open up your own telephone company by laying your own cable down to compete, you have every right to do so."

It takes more than a "right" to start a business. It takes investment capital. In the case of telco's, every CLEC out there owning their own infrastructure would be three things. 1) Fiscally impossible. 2) Incredibly wasteful. 3) Incredibly ugly - can you imagine every telephone pole made 100 feet high, carrying cables for every single telco in the country? Is that a street you'd want to drive down or live on? Especially since all these wires are all using only 1% of their capacity?

Do you realize that you're defending predatory, monopolistic, anti-competitive, anti-free market status quo?

Let's continue for a moment down the analogistic path. When American (and foreign) space missions have flown, and have carried into space scientific experiments and equipment, they weren't all from the same person or company. Do you think that every single scientist who needed experimental results from space should have built and flown their own shuttle? Would you have the scientific community be kept from the knowledge that helps you and me lead better lives rather than have all the experiments piggyback up on the same shuttle? Would you have every astronomer build their own Hubble telescopes rather than use the one that exists, and share it?

At one end of the scale, you have fast food franchises. When you open one, investment costs are relatively low. Accordingly, there's millions of these places, and they all compete. At the other end of the scale, you have going into outer space, or laying copper to every house in the nation.

"when Netscape was losing their market share to Microsoft over Internet Explorer" ...it was because IE came bundled with the OS, wheras netscape did not. Again you defend predatory, anti-competitive, monopolistc practices.

"taking market share away from Microsoft"

What planet do you live on? Here on Earth, IE has 86.56% of browser market share, as opposed to Firefox's MIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT!! This in spite of the fact that IE is the WORST BROWSER EVER WRITTEN! This in spite of the fact that Netscape had over 50% market share until 1997! Gee, how on Earth did that happen? Woo hoo, let's hear it for predatory monopolies!

"Revscat, that is what happens when the Free Market decides"

Only an utter zealot (or a troll posting anonymously) would treat the phrase "free market" as a proper noun to be capitalized.

Look, Einstein, this is how it works. Regulation, like everything else in life, operates within a spectrum. On the far end, you have over-regulation. I honestly can't think of any recent examples of this, but I'm sure it exists somewhere, probably in Europe. In the middle, you have regulation at it's most appropriate level, where business and consumers are equally represented. These are called CHECKS AND BALANCES, maybe you've heard of them. At the other end, you have UNDER-regulation. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as under-regulation. It

Re:Another tragically flawed idealist speaks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice rant, and well said. I do have a couple of comments:

This in spite of the fact that IE is the WORST BROWSER EVER WRITTEN!

I'm afraid I have to take exception to this. While IE certainly is a steaming pile of excrement when compared to most other current browsers, the Worst Browser Ever Written title surely must go to Netscape 4.x. The depth and breadth of the ways it was broken were truly breathtaking.

"A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the Constitution itself."

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. BTW, thanks for reminding me of why I DIDN'T vote libertarian last time.

Ironic how he pulls the Constitution into it when one of its primary purposes is to lay out the ways in which government is allowed to regulate the citizenry. Perhaps he should actually read it sometime.

When flaming Libertarians, btw, pay attention to that capital "L". Libertarians of the stripe who belong to the party of that name are generally not all that libertarian: they don't want the government to protect you from them, but they damn well expect it to protect them from you. Like all those whose worldview is fundamentally irrational, they're impossible to have any sort of reasonable conversation with. Best to let them hang out in their little political niche where they can't hurt anybody.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

no common carrier == censorship possible

[UlfGabe]

DO NOT forget that should common carrier status be dropped that ISP's can now CENSOR PARTS OF THE INTERNET.

Please Correct me if I am mistaken, This is wildly more important that price gouging.

For example, the ISP you are currently at may block you from going to a competetors site, a party may give $$$ to the ISP and block you from viewing another party's website.

Re:no common carrier == censorship possible

[Trick]

To some extent, they've already been doing this. For years, SBC's been filtering out large chunks of Usenet they don't want you seeing.

Re:no common carrier == censorship possible

[Anonymous Coward]

No they haven't. They have not been filtering ANYTHING. They simply have not been replicating some of the Usenet groups onto THEIR OWN SERVERS. This is not censorship. They do not have to provide news servers. They do not have to replicate all the groups onto their own news servers.

If you want your binary groups, you'll have to find another Usenet provider.

Re:no common carrier == censorship possible

[Trick]

At the risk of becoming repetitive, stating the obvious, and a whole host of other sins:

"They have not been filtering ANYTHING. They simply have not been replicating some of the Usenet groups onto THEIR OWN SERVERS."

So, let's see if I've got this straight: they selectively skip pulling data down to their servers, but it's not filtering? I think we're working with a couple different definitions of filtering here. In my line of work, if you define a set of rules which defines when data will or will not be transferred, replicated, or otherwise processed, we call that a filter.

Of course, it's always possible that they have a cadre of alchemists turning Usenet posts into copper, and running it out to homes in the form of DSL lines, but I think a filter's a lot more likely.

"This is not censorship. They do not have to provide news servers. They do not have to replicate all the groups onto their own news servers."

No, they do not have to provide Usenet servers -- but they do. They then, selectively, choose certain groups not to replicate. If you look at which groups are and are not replicated, you'll find that some groups (binary and otherwise) are replicated, and certain others are not. For example, a quick diff between the offerings of SBC and my current provider shows that SBC has chosen to provide plenty of erotica groups, but is noticeably missing those with "teen" in the name. There are planty of other groups, binary and otherwise, that SBC has chosen not to replicate.

Without making any judgements on whether that's a good thing or not, it's obvious that SBC has examined the available newsgroups, and supressed or deleted (or transmuted, if they've got those alchemists) those they considered objectionable.

From good ol' m-w.com:

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

How is that not what they've done?

If you're an SBC alchemist, I sincerely apologize for my ignorance.

Re:no common carrier == censorship possible

[dvNull]

By using the definition of censorship you have posted, SBC is not _censoring_ anything. If you absolutely MUST have erotica with the word teen i it, get it from somewhere else. If they blocked you from accessing the same material from another source using their service, then yes it would be censoring.

If you go to your friend's house and he has a huge pr0n collection, but he doesnt have any pr0n concerning rubber ducks, then is he censoring material that you want to view ?

Re:no common carrier == censorship possible

[Trick]

I realize answering anything in a Slashdot post from more than a few hours ago is an exercise in futility, but:

"By using the definition of censorship you have posted, SBC is not _censoring_ anything."

No, read it again. According to that definition, censorship is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable," which is *exactly* what SBC is doing. They examine the available newsgroups, then delete or supress -- from their servers -- those they find objectionable.

"If they blocked you from accessing the same material from another source using their service, then yes it would be censoring."

So, if I watch an R-rated movie on broadcast TV, and they've bleeped out all the "fucks" and "shits," they haven't censored it because I can hear the original dialog on HBO?

I really think we're using two different definitions of "censorship" here. The one I think you're using would be something different, more like "prohibition." You'll note I'm not claiming SBC is prohibiting, only censoring.

"If you go to your friend's house and he has a huge pr0n collection, but he doesnt have any pr0n concerning rubber ducks, then is he censoring material that you want to view ?"

If he has reviewed all the available porn, and intentionally deleted or supressed rubber duckie porn, then yes, I would be viewing a censored porn collection.

Re:no common carrier == censorship possible

[Trick]

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to edit that last sentence:

If he has reviewed all the available porn, and intentionally deleted or supressed rubber duckie porn because he could deal with farm animals, scatophilia, and the goatse guy, but rubber duckies were just too damn nasty, then yes, I would be viewing a censored porn collection.

I left out the intent, which is important.

Not seeing the problem.

[calyptos]

The problem isn't that dsl is now an "information service". We need to have some of the same rules that are in "telecommunications" apply to "information service", so that the switch won't negatively affect competetion. Reclassifying it is fine, but if you're going to reclassify it, do it right.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[DavidTC]

I have never used a cell in DC, not having been there in almost a decade, and so had no idea... (And I wouldn't have noticed, as I have Verizon.)

But that's exactly the sort of shit I'm talking about. Verizon doesn't own the damn subways. They were given the right to run wires through the subway because DC would look ugly with telephone wires.

And now that they 'own' this space, they think not only can they run cell tower wires through it, but that other companies can't.

I bet they even run private WANs through there, too, for businesses in multiple buildings. They charge the businesses for the wires, run them though their free access space, and rake in the cash.

We need to go out and take every telephone wire and accessway back from every phone company, becuase they simply will not stop abusing them. My personal preference is to just give them 24 hours to remove their wires from public places or have them confiscated (hehe), but in the real world we'd probably have to buy them using eminant domain.

Probably for the best in the long run.

[earthbound kid]

There's a lot of moaning and doom and gloom in this thread, but I think most people have overlooked the one problem with the business of DSL resellers:

They're selling something they don't own.

Think about it, what do local DSL providers actually provide? They provide a link between your computer and some internet backbone. And how is this link made? By going over "the last mile" of copper, which is owned by the phone company. How does it make any sense for someone to sell service on a wire they don't own? That's like having the Canadian government collect tolls in one set of booths on I-95: it might add "competition" in the sense that now there's more than one group competing to be your toll booth, but it doesn't change the physical facts of the highway. Traffic is going to be just as bad, pot holes aren't going to go away, and if anything the situation will be made worse, since the transit company in charge of the actual highway isn't going to see as much profit for the changes it makes.

So basically, we as consumers are essentially screwed, because it's only natural that whoever controls the last mile exerts a natural monopoly over internet service, right? Well no, not exactly.

How the consumer can escape being screwed is, while competition over the same set of lines is basically impossible, there are multiple sets of "last miles" coming into our houses already today. To point out the obvious: cable. Now, in a lot of areas, cable service is shitty, but that's only because cable has little competition for TV service, outside of satellite, and little competition for broadband service, outside of DSL. And the DSL service is always weak, because it hasn't been in the interests of the phone companies to make DSL service better.

But, all of this can change, because of A) new pressures from wireless internet services and B) this new ruling which lets the people who own the last mile of DSL finally act like they own the last mile of DSL.

So essentially, we are going to have to give up fake competition within the realm of DSL in order to achieve real competition between DSL and cable. And that's not a bad tradeoff, in my book.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[Halvy]

They're selling something they don't own.

Then how do you explain the demarkation areas, the public telephone poles and land that all this infrastructure is on?

Last time I checked *I* own it!! And EVERYONE else.

They only put the wires up, which they are free to take back, except after we (the people) are done with these thugs (before they ruin the net) they will owe us, and WE will own the wires and boxes too!!

But, all of this can change, because of A) new pressures from wireless internet services

Oh, and since this 'new' technology is already being 'outlawed' except by only the few choosen rich and 'in the clic' corporations, how is that suppose to let 'us' have more control and freedom from these new thugs in wireless?

B) this new ruling which lets the people who own the last mile of DSL finally act like they own the last mile of DSL.

OH!! Like grandma and everyone else knows how this is suppose to be done! And you don't mention at all that even if by some mircle they did know 'what-to-do' with their 'last mile', they STILL have to deal with the bonnie & clyde bells (or cable co.) when they reach the telephone pole!!

Nice try (NOT) bub on 'sounding' slick. I wonder who you work for.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[anthony_dipierro]

Think about it, what do local DSL providers actually provide? They provide a link between your computer and some internet backbone. And how is this link made? By going over "the last mile" of copper, which is owned by the phone company.

So, why does it cost more to get DSL than it does to get a regular old phone line? Either one requires the same amount of copper.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[mmurphy000]

How the heck did this get modded "insightful"?

There are lots of businesses that "sell something they don't own" by your criterion that a service requires end-to-end ownership. In fact, very few businesses have end-to-end ownership of the means for their service. For example:

• Long-distance carriers who aren't your local telco don't own the local phone lines. Instead, they contract for access to your home via the telco.
• Internet service providers can only provide direct access within their own pool of customers. To reach anyone else, they have to contract with other ISPs, via direct links or peering points.
• Cellular carriers do not necessarily own the land on which their cells are located — the land or building where the cell is mounted is leased.
• FedEx Home does not own their own trucks; instead, they use independent contractors for that service. Similarly, many long-haul trucking companies don't own their own trucks, but rather use "owner-operators".
• Banks can only cash checks drawn on their own banking system directly. For everything else, they need to use various inter-bank networks or private exchanges.
• Most retailers don't own the land or building they use, but rather rent from a real estate owner.

In all those cases, a critical portion of the service delivery requires a relationship with other firms. In theory, the FCC ruling does not prevent this from DSL; what it does is no longer force the telco's to make these sorts of arrangements when requested. The difference is that in all my cited examples save long-distance service, there is competition for the equivalent of the DSL "last mile". And with long-distance service, the telcos are happy to cut deals because their foot is in the door already with the consumer.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[Anonymous Coward]

But, all of this can change, because of A) new pressures from wireless internet services

Oh, and since this 'new' technology is already being 'outlawed' except by only the few choosen rich and 'in the clic' corporations, how is that suppose to let 'us' have more control and freedom from these new thugs in wireless?

Actually, he may not be talking about municipal wi-fi, as most of the legislation we've heard about has been fighting, but possibly current and later (Wi-Max) technology providers. (i.e. Clearwire) With that said, wireless has its applications (I have Clearwire), but I don't think that in dense urban areas it is the best choice. You have to deal with interference due to multiple devices in a small area, or because of line-of-sight clutter. And is it that much more expensive to run a fiber backbone into a neighborhood and split it at a pedestal? Or, even better, in a high-rise apartment building. As it is, in a medium-sized apartment complex, I'm having serious latency issues with my wireless broadband.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[evilviper]

How does it make any sense for someone to sell service on a wire they don't own?

Good question. Why don't you ask the telcos that, because they don't own the lines either.

Why should the company contracted to maintain the lines be the only one who can sell a service on the lines? You could just as well say Caltrans is the only company that can sell commercial trucking services...

The DSL companies pay a fee to the telcos for the physical lines. As long as they do that, why should they be locked out?

Moderations on /. are getting worse and worse...

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[earthbound kid]

None of your examples are examples of people selling things they don't own, just people using things they don't own as a part of their business.

• Long distance carriers don't sell "the last mile." They sell their cross-country networks.
• What ISPs sell is a connection between your house and other networks.
• Cell carriers aren't selling real estate.
• FedEx isn't selling trucks.
• Banks don't sell the ability to cash checks. (Hint: they don't take a cut off of checks.) They do sell the service of storing your own money and allowing you to write checks to other people.
• Retailers sell the stuff in their store, not their location.

It's true that in all these cases, the businesses are helped by having access to some things they don't own. There's nothing wrong with using things you don't own in your business, basically we all do, since we all use the public highways to move our products and provide access for our customers. The problem comes when you try to make a business out of selling what you don't own. That's the part that makes no sense.

The closest point you make is about the long distance providers, because it does seem to resemble selling DSL on the surface. The difference is that these local DSLs don't own cross-country backbones, the way that AT&T and MCI owned their own backbones. Owning those backbones gave AT&T and MCI real assets that they could parlay into competitive differences. In contrast, the DSLs just have a box in the local phone company's DSL access shed that they hook up to someone else's internet backbone. In other words, they're a complete and utter middle man who add almost no value to their core product, and without government protection via these common carrier rules, they wouldn't exist in the first place.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because DSL equipment is new and more needs to be added? Telephone equipment, even then newer switches have paid for themselves and anything made off of them is mostly profit.

Re:Probably for the best in the long run.

[Jonny 290]

>>

SBC charges ISP's $39.00 a month to run DSL over their copper to our customers. Beyond that, it's our Redback DSLAM, and our frame relays move the data about.

Compare this price range to the fucking $14.99 loss-leader shit DSL that Yahoo SBC offers, and enlighten me as to how the small ISP's are fucking the customer. Please.

(incidentally, the above figures are why i do not fear this change AT ALL.)

MOD PARENT UP

[TheoMurpse]

This is the most informative post I've read in over a week.

The FCC is owned

[AngryNick]

The Bu$h administration has slowly replaced all the pro-consumer people (read "democrats") in the FCC (and for that matter, most other regulatory agencies) so that it is now more big-bu$ine$$ friendly. Republican$ tend to refer to it in happy terms, like "removing the barriers to free enterprise," but leave out the part "...at the expense of the little guys." Raising the expenses of the smaller DSL providers will only result in higher prices across the board, as the lack of upward price controls will cause those with lower expenses to seek larger profits. But, then who makes up a larger part of the Republican$' base? Verizon or Speakeasy? SBC or AOL? "Jeb/Frist 2008" sounds like a great tax shelter/investment for those extra profits.

Re:The FCC is owned

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you crazy?

      "pro-consumer people (read "democrats")"

Democrats believe in wealth redistribution and call it "progressive." What complete BS. I'm not a consumer, I'm a customer.

Republicans aren't much better. They have continued to spend money that we don't have.

I haven't reviewed the available information on this FCC ruling myself, so I'll hold my statements until later, but blaming either of the two major political parties completely is foolish. Both are at fault and each of us voters who allow this to occur are responsible too. Look in the mirror - YOU ARE THE ENEMY.

Re:The FCC is owned

[Proud Neocon A True]

Wow, the whiny Communist Demoncrats are at it again, this time crying about a luxury. Is Internet Access even essential to live? Verizon, SBC, et al own the copper & fiber optic cables that make up the phone system, so if they don't want their customers to have DSL without phone service, then it's their God given right to do so. Hell, they don't even have to share their system with any CLEC. If you don't like their decision, then simply don't go with them, get a Cell phone and cable broadband. Of course you shouldn't have to worry about the cable tv provider forcing you Demoncrats to have cable TV to use broadband, since you're all addicted to the reality crap that's on tv. Another option is for you to simply install the copper & fiber optic cables yourself.

Then again, Demoncrats prefer to bitch, moan, whine and cry about a vast Right Wing conspiracy controlling everything. The only action that you Demoncrats apparently do beyond that is commit Treason. ;D

The actual article

[Sir_Dill]

is here http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-260433A1.pdf

Word of PDF take your pick. Good thing OpenOffice opens docs.(another discussion alltogether)

Essentially this is going to screw us all and the FCC really pisses me off lately. I would like to know just who our government really represents because lately it sure as hell doesn't feel like the people.

So basically all us outlaw DSL users that don't opt for the telco sponsored service have a year, after which who knows what will happen. The actual release is very vague and uses lots of references to common and non-common carrier wording. This kind of crap is really getting out of hand with the FCC.

Check out the statements from the people that made the descision. I understand the logic but the implimentation seems backwards. Heres the basic gist, cable companies get protection from leasing thier lines(which is why my cable bill is 120 bucks with no premium channels) Telcos do not currently have the same luxury.

Some choice quotes: Kevin J Martin said: "I believe that, with the actions we take today, consumers will reap the benefits of increased Internet access competition and enjoy innovative high-speed services at lower prices. There is, however, more to do to stimulate infrastructure investment, broadband deployment, and competition in the broadband market. I intend to tackle these challenges in the upcoming months." Wow this guy makes some big claims....I wonder what those challenges are and how they intend to handle that.

Kathleen Q. Abernathy states:"And let there be no doubt: competition among broadband providers is flourishing. The Commission's most recent statistics show that over 80% of zip codes in America are served by two or more high-speed providers, about two-thirds are served by three or more, and over half are served by four or more." Idea for the next slashdot poll. How many broadband providers serve you? If I cut out thirdparty ISPs like Speakeasy I have Qwest and Comcast. Thats two services run by a bunch of monkeys charging whatever the hell they want for thier service.

all of the statements made by the people that made the decision are full of "facts and figures" with no references to sources. The real driving force behind this decision is those peer to peer music stealing communist evil pirates that are taking the food from artists childrens mouth. The short statement likes the use of "legal devices" what is a legal device to access the internet? Is that defined somewhere? Children like Jermajesty(no I am not kidding lookit up)! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! This goes hand in hand with CALEA which is cited in the release as well.

I would run away to another county but thats not much better

How do we find out how to vote based on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to vote against those that are behind this and encourage others to do the same by publishing information.

How do I find out the ties between the FCC's decision, telcos that benefit from this, and elected officials that need our votes?

To me, this issue is more important than abortion or gay marriages.

While countries like South Korea are making it easier for their citizens to have cheap broadband access, it seems our country is using government power to increase profits for several select companies at the expense of both citizens and all other companies.

How much longer are we going to stand by while our national security, our democracy, and our way of life is savaged by corrupt politicians? Sure, politicians have a history of being bought, but I cannot remember it being so blatant and so far-reaching as it stands today.

The laws regarding media monopolies that were meant to protect us have been repealed and nobody is even talking about it. Do we really want one company to own all the TV stations and newspapers in the same city or region so they can more effectively brainwash the gullible masses?

How bad must things get before we start to spend more of our time & money to participate in the political process so that we regain America's former glory? Hell, we spend more on movies or beer than we do on getting more honest politicians elected (or kicking out dishonest ones) and bitch about them voting in favor of companies that help them get elected.

Surely I'm not the only American frustrated by all this.

ps

Want fair taxes? Why don't we have a flat tax of 20% for everyone (including companies), make the first $20,000 non-taxable (or whatever matches the current USA poverty line), and make the rest non-eligible for any deductions whatsoever? Many companies making millions in profits (not revenues) pay less than 5% due to various tax credits and other deductions they have bribed politicians to include in the tax code--and those deductions are written in a manner that only allows a few select companies to qualify.

Re:How do we find out how to vote based on this?

[Overzeetop]

Want fair taxes? Opt for a gross receipts tax. My rough numbers put it at 2.5% to 5%. No deductions, no exemptions, no credits. Buy and Sell stock daily? You're going to pay a percentage of each transaction to Uncle Sam. He protects the system which allows you to trade, you pay for that protection. Own a corporation? Pay tax twice - once when your corporation gets paid, once when you pay your salary/take profit. The US Governement provides special legal protections for Corporations...there's your fee for that protection. Want to avoid the double tax? go Sole Proprietor and put your ass out there for liability like everyone else. Flip your house or car every three years to keep up with the Jonses? You got it...pay the man on each transaction.

Okay, there's one deduction: Each United States Taxpayer Identification Number (SSN for residents, TIN for legal aliens) over 16 years of age gets an annual deduction equal to 2087x(federal minimum wage). Thats right, you make at or less that the full time minimum wage, and we'll give you a pass. Want to lower taxes? Raise the minimum wage. And no, if you have a dozen kids you don't get to deduct them. You chose to have them (remember screaming "Oh God, YES!"? that was the decision moment). However, if your spouse chooses not to work, the two of you (filing jointly) get your "full" deduction.

Disclaimer: I trade stocks & mutual funds for investment, I own an S Corp, My wife and I both work, I have a child. I'm not looking for a free ride, I want something that is relatively fair and very hard to skirt.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

The problem with WiMax is Quality Of Service.
The bandwidth seems like a decent amount, but spread over 30 miles leaves very little per person. One kazaa user would destroy your connnection, making it useless for persistant connections, but still okay for its intention (roaming). You never want to rely on wireless connections for longer than you have to.

You are wrong on a couple of points

[voxel]

To correct the analogy with your phone booths along the highway:

1. You have to be able to go to the phone booth and pick from a phone-provider before you put in your quarter. You can pick SBC which having the most marketing will have the biggest and brightest selection button, but I instead pick Sonic.net, because when I pick up the phone, hear that dial tone and then punch in 411 for information, their information (e.g. Support) is much better, I can understand the person because he is speaking perfect english, not someone who studied english for 2 years reading from a script in India that can't tell me what I need to know. (e.g. How to fix a problem with my service). No thanks, I'll punch in Sonic.net and give them my 25 cents instead of SBC.

2. Secondly, SBC service and Comcast service (DSL vs Cable in California) deserve their own analogy:

The little DSL ISP's with their supperior support are the track stars in the 100m dash.

Comcast always comes in dead last and SBC comes in 2nd to dead last out of 8 competing providers.

So, now you remove all the good players, and leave the two handicapped lame track runners competing against each other, they are handicapped from their size and will never be fast.

Will they get better? No, history has shown this with any large company, good service doesn't scale. Really, look it up.

Re:You are wrong on a couple of points

[earthbound kid]

Um, I didn't say phone booths on I-95. I said toll booths on I-95. Knowing that may help you understand the analogy more. What DSL providers are trying to sell is access to a highway that they don't own. That's stupid, even if they are adding really nice services to their booth that otherwise wouldn't be there. (AKA local companies tend to be slightly more clue-full than the telecos.) No matter how nice the ancillary products like customer support are for the local DSLs, the fact is they're still selling something they don't own: a connection from your house to the internet backbones.

Speakasy reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is what I got from Speakeasy customer support when asked how FCC descision would affect their service:

"... Speakeasy operates on a WHOLESALE model, where we buy essentially DSL physical layer (DSLAM) and add all of the IP services ourselves. The FCC ruling does not contemplate any changes to this regime, or to the massive unbundling ruling they issued in February. Covad and our other CLEC partners run exclusively on an unbundled network regime. We have direct commercial wholesale relationships with SBC and Qwest are for their wholesale products and the private commercial relationships are unaffected by the FCC ruling.

The FCC ruling will have no impact on our pricing."

The renaming game...

[linuxhansl]

Renaming things to circumvent or change the laws regarding the renamed thing seems to be in fashion. (Somewhat off topic)

• "Enemy Combatant" instead of "Prisoner of War"
• "Act of War" instead "Terrorist Attack"
• "Terrorist" instead of "Criminal" (happened in some cases)
• "Information Service" instead of "Telecommunication"
• and so on, I wonder what's next

Renaming is convenient, you do have to go through all the trouble of actually changing the law, finding majorities and such.
Just name things differently and the law does not apply anymore (or so it seems these days). It's that easy.

Re:The renaming game...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about

"whistleblower" to "liberal/democrat/unpatriotic"?

even when the whistleblower contributed to the Bush/Cheney campaign in the last election.

Re:The renaming game...

[chrispycreeme]

How about "War on Terror" to "The global struggle against extremism"?

The sad thing is how many people fall for it. Doesn't anybody read 1984 anymore?

I for one think it's double plus good.

Re:The renaming game...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe you've left out the best (i.e., most ludicrous) one:

- "Freedom fries" instead of "French fries".

I, for one, would be willing to wager that they'll never top that one.

do you remember...

[zogger]

...that bush photo op where he was in a warehouse extolling the virtues of local small business in the US and they used a backdrop with phony crates marked "made in USA", because all the real crates came from China?

Hysterical

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/bush.box es/

Thanks you Moral Crusader

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you can go back to watching your Tranny porn and listening to sean hannity.

It's because of the age of the wires

[zogger]

The telcos have had generations to make a profit. Entire generations now. They got mandated exclusivity-a monopoly- in exchange for building the infrastructure. If they have failed to make a profit up to this point and can't invest in new infrastructure, maybe it's time to just disband them and sell off their assets. they built something adequate for 40 years ago. Well, that's cool, thanks, but this isn't 40 years ago now.

I live rural, when I moved in I needed phone service to get some sort of internet. They ran new CRAPPY wire. They couldn't be bothered to take the opportunity and run something that broadband could be provided on, nope, they ran the same stuff they ran 40 years ago, as a result, no broadband available here. And this isn't WAY out in the boonies, it's just marginally rural.

That's the sort of short sighted bogusness that people complain about. It's abuse on the telcos part. I know from talking to the installers that they have fiber at the nearest box, but they couldn't be bothered to run anything even marginally better from the box. So, no one on our street can get broadband unless you want to pay for satellite broadband.

How many decades of exclusivity do they need? Where's the cutoff point?

This is a step back near as I can see. I understand their point to a small degree, but I don't see where THEY have thrown any beef on the bun even when they had ample opportunity in the past to do it. At WORST, the way it was before, any competition was forced to pay exact cost, so even there they were getting paid. there was no loss on their part, only cash coming in, even if it came from another middleman provider. Now, they have no incentive to do anything else, just milk what they have built already for as long as possible and merely *talk* about infrastructure upgrades.

All I have to say is:

[__aailob1448]

WHAT THE FUCK?

Re:Community Co-op ISP

[anthony_dipierro]

Maybe now that internet access is being deregulated, municipal networks will become popular again. If that happens, this might just turn out to be the best thing that could have happened.

Want their cake ane eat it too?

[darkonc]

CALEAwas supposed to apply to telecom services, yes? Now they're saying that DSL isn't a telecom service, but CALEA still applies to it.
From The CALEA act

(6) The term ``information services''--

(A) means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications; and

If DSL is no longer a telecommunication, then there is no longer a need to complay with the CALEA, right? I think that this would definitely apply if I were to run the lines, and only supply DSL services on it.

Re:Want their cake ane eat it too?

[plasmacutter]

I predict some sort of lawsuit on this one. Not on behalf of the isp's but on behalf of some public advocacy group. Not that they'll win or anything. the lovely (R) appointees will make sure the government can be as hyppocritical as it wants in it's efforts to support king george.

It Is Near The End For The Major ISP's And They..

[Halvy]

Sense it.

This latest crime against the citizens is simply more proof of their 'anxiety' on this issue.

With emerging technologies such as spread-spectrum, end user wifi broadcasting, ray-bounce and wave-merge aplications, it is no wonder that the major players in isp services are 'acting' like they are.

These technologies will allow 'all' of us to become our own isp and dns servers.

At that point the need for 'corporations' will all but be over-- completly.

With the help of their homosexual buds at the fcc (pronounced F*ck), they are simply 'hurrying' up to grab the last large chunk of 'Crack Whore' money.. before the authorities (us, the masses) come for them.

Who uses DSL, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, if you're in a major city, get fucking cable and stop being a twat.

Yes, you NEED a local phone line!

[twistedcubic]

for 911 calls. In California, if you call 911 on a cell phone, you get the CHP (State police) and then get put on hold for 5 minutes. If you call 911 on a landline, you get an operator who can tell you your name and address in a split second. Most people never make a 911 call, but when you have to make a 911 call on a cell phone, you'll cherish that land line.

Re:Yes, you NEED a local phone line!

[slaad]

Wow, sounds like a great system.... Fortunately it's not an issue in MI.

Read "Toxic Sludge is Good for You"

[MacFury]

It's very frustrating and depressing, but I suggest you pick up a copy of Toxic Sludge is Good for You! by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton.

It may help you understand why this, anti citizen decision, and many others came to pass.

Re: Regulated Monopolies

[toonerh]

There is a place for govenment regulation when it is not economically viable to have competition. There is no money to build a second land line phone system, especially in today's cell phone world.

If you know any history, you know "antitrust" laws were passed around 100 years ago to conteract "trusts", huge monopolistic companies that controled all oil (Standard Oil), for example. A Supreme Court much less "activist" than today's upheld this act of Congress.

You can't get very far in today's world by reading a bunch old Ann Rand books...

Maybe not in Texas

[lifeblender]

Looks like Texas is better off than California in this regard, at least in my experience. 911 from a cellphone here gets me an immediate "What city, please?" followed by a transfer to that city's 911 service. Takes a few seconds, but it sounds much better than minutes.

Try it out yourself. During a non-peak and non-widespread emergency period (no rain, even), call 911, see how long it takes, and say "Sorry, just testing the system. Thank you for being there." Then hang up and don't tie up the line. Here it doesn't take long at all. If it does take a long time from a cell phone in your area, raise holy hell, because there's no reason for it.

Re:Maybe not in Texas

[Pharmboy]

Try it out yourself. During a non-peak and non-widespread emergency period (no rain, even), call 911, see how long it takes, and say "Sorry, just testing the system. Thank you for being there." Then hang up and don't tie up the line.

I am not arguing your point, but what you are proposing is actually illegal, at least in most places. Calling 911 *intentionally* for any reason other than an emergency is not a good idea. Telling them you are "testing them" is even worse.

You could just call the regular number and ask the emergency services what the procedure is in your state. This way you don't tie up an operator and delay a real emergency call.

Re:Maybe not in Texas

[lifeblender]

Well, all right. I don't want to bug anybody with this. How do you find out if your emergency system is really going to work, though? I mean, all my other backup and fail-safe systems get tested at least once. I guess you could just hope you've got a minor reason to call 911 before you've got a major reason, but that doesn't sound too good to me.

If 911 took too long from a cell phone, then I'd feel compelled to look up the local emergency numbers for my city and add them to my phone. True, that wouldn't help on a trip or something, but "when seconds count" as the ads went, you've got to make sure it works as well as it can. This is all about the 'safety of mission critical components', i.e. bodily health, so I can't see my way to not testing it.

Mind you, I did test it, because I stopped for other people's traffic accidents and called 911. Sometimes I was actually the first to report it, so I don't feel bad about the other times where I was a me-too poster, as it were.

Re:Maybe not in Texas

[Mycroft_VIII]

I used *55 once on my phone and got the Highway Patroll right away. It was a car on fire( 3ft/1m flames from the hood!). I asked the other guys looking on if they'd called and they said they assumed the owner had.

Mycroft

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[terrymr]

Probably won't though ... they publicly threaten judges who disagree with them, but don't really care what the agencies do, usually because they appointed all their buddies to run the agencies anyway.

Are they now liable for content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't the common carrier rules what shelters ISPs from liability for the internet's content and the actions of subscribers?

If they're now an information service, do they lose this?

Will ISPs now have to censor the internet and monitor customer behaviour for fear of prosecution for content?

what about privacy?

[zonker]

reclassification as an information service rather than a telecommunications service might change the way privacy and rights issues (i'm thinking of court cases, seizures of equipment, etc.) are handled, would it not?

Competition

[Cinematique]

Sure, this decision may make for less "competition"... in the sense that ILECs are now free from being required to share "their" lines... and maybe the little Mom and Pop local DSL ISP is going to be murdered through this decision.

But... the whole idea of shared-line competition was fishy to begin with. It stifled any real progress because it left the CLECs at the mercy of the local teleco for the infrastructure.

Sure, there are some isolated success stories... but the bottom line here is that the original 1996 act which made this all possible did not help those in an area where the local teleco had neither the capital or the inclination to provide DSL service... so it really didn't create competition (or actual service!) in places that needed it most.

This ruling isn't going to make it any worse (or better) for those who live in rural America. It's only going to have an effect on a very small percentage of people who have Speakeasy, Earthlink, and the like. And those companies can only really compete in customer service and price... not the actual up/downlink... so what's the point? Service doesn't improve... it just moves sideways.

Don't get me wrong... the argument presented by the RBOCs complaining how they didn't want to upgrade infrastructure and the be forced to share it was simply greedy and disingenuous, to say the least. But now they have their way. So I hope to see a huge push for FiOS... true competition for the cable companies.

In short... if this ruling eliminates fishy psudo-competition and replaces it with real genuine competition... what's not to like?

What happens to new services?

[robertdfeinman]

The telecommunications world only opened up after AT&T lost it monopoly. As a result lots of new services were created. Even the design of the telephone changed and millions were sold with new features.

Many industries are looking for broadband as a way to offer new information services. If history is any example a near- or shared-monopoly on access will stifle initiative. We will see how long it takes for the information providers to react when they can sell HD movies on demand in Japan but not here because of lack of hardware upgrades by the telcos.

Not only entertainment but other services may not be rolled out and put the US at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the developed world.

This could open up possibilities, too

[Skapare]

If the telcos want to stop offering a "telecommunication service" the last mile to the home and offer an "information service" instead, then they would have less of a basis for fighting against someone else coming along and offering a "telecommunications service", such as Lafayette, Louisiana. The city has a stronger defense when they are building something that isn't being offered by some company. So in a way, I see this as a good thing. The telcos are tying their own noose.

Well the big concern is

[Sycraft-fu]

ISP rules and regulations. Right now, if you live in an area with lots of competing ISPs, you can shop around to find one that has a ToS that you agree with. Maybe you have to pay more for it, but that's ok, it's your choice. If however all the competing ISPs dissappear, the telcos then get to dictate whatever terms they want, if you don't like it, you can't do anything about it.

The reason this worries people so much is that they've already been assholes about it in so very many cases. Cable companies are infamous for providing "unlimited" cable service but then screaming at you and throttling or shutting off your connection if you use too much bandwidth, in their opinion (and usually the limit isn't spelled out).

Often you get even stupider restrictions. Here locally Cox had a rule that said VPNs weren't allowed on residental cable modem service. You had to have their bussiness DSL to use that, which in additon to being about twice the price for much slower service, was really hard to get because their business division was incompetent. The way VPN was worded, even SSH would qualify.

Also, seems to me that all the advancement we've seen in DSL has happened since it was opened up. I got DSL back in 1999 when it was pretty new and telco only. Man, talk about a fucking disaster. I can't see how anyone but a geek would put up with all the problems. Also it was really pricey, and all we got was 256k/256k. Now I get 6m/768k DSL from a 3rd party (Speakeasy) and great service to go with it. It's been reliable enough it easily would qualify for business use. And for all that, they don't restrict my bandwidth usage, don't filter any ports, etc.

Basically it seems to me that the phone companies are too incompetent to do anything but provide copper. HAving met some phone switch guys, this doesn't supprise me, they are all stuck in the past and think that the Internet is a fad, more or less, and that voice is where it's at. So fine, let them provide the copper, someone else can provide transport and access, someone who knows what they are doing and does a good job of it.

Re:Well the big concern is

[earthbound kid]

If however all the competing ISPs dissappear, the telcos then get to dictate whatever terms they want, if you don't like it, you can't do anything about it.

My point is that competing ISPs aren't going anywhere. What's going to go away is competing DSL carriers offering to sell you the same splice of line. What we have today is a classic "tragedy of the commons," where while its in everyone's collective interest to improve local DSL service, it's in everyone's individual interest to let someone else pay for that, and just keep their own prices as low as possible. To get rid of "tragedy of the commons" situations, it's necessary to assign the right to use an area of the commons to one group, since then they'll improve the commons in order to preserve their profits. So, once it becomes in your local telco's interest to improve DSL service, they will. And once that happens, cable broadband will have competition, so they'll have to improve. And meanwhile, they'll both be facing competition from new wireless services. The point is that there will still be competition in the broadband market as a whole, just not phony competition, where a bunch of people all try to sell your the same part of the commons, within the DSL market.

Gotta agree.

[Medievalist]

Testify, brother! I hate things that use electricity (i.e. money) to absolutely no useful purpose.

I've got a 1950 Western Electric 500 with a G1 handset right here on the desk next to me. I had to modify it with a paperclip so the ringer would work on a 2-wire system (it was made for 4-wire) but it sounds just fine - better than a cell phone or a modern chinese-made phone.

And unlike the people with powered, push-button, memory-chip phones, I can actually remember the phone numbers of my friends and relations... choosing to store their numbers in a chip, when you can easily fit dozens in your head, is just training yourself to be retarded.

Nokia!

[Chicks_Hate_Me]

You forgot Nokia...damn good DSLAMs!

And thus, Washington lops off the invisible hand.

[Medievalist]

Now DSL can be just like cable - a hideous warren of viruses and worms; an incompetently administered, fertile field for criminals.

Ever notice how phone technology, when it was no longer the province of regional monopolies, suddenly became astronomically more powerful and fantastically cheaper?

That's the majic of competition, the "invisible hand" that guides the marketplace, the cornerstone of capitalism.

True "laissez faire" capitalism - where there is no law at all - leads inevitably to monopolies, and those monopolies are always dominated by Murder, Inc. Look at the illegal markets, which are the only truly "unmanaged" capitalism. If I can murder my competition, that's cheaper than making my products better than theirs. If I can monopolize delivery of a service, that's cheaper than making my service better than the other guy's.

When customers cannot "vote with their feet" - when they have no choice of services - there is absolutely no incentive to provide quality service to the customer.

Capitalism is a great system under proper social conditions. Without laws to foster competition, though, capitalism just becomes another form of feudalism.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[fishbowl]

Another way of saying "the government operates with the express consent of the people."

You fucking idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You moron, company that spent $millions or $billions on their network.

They didn't spend THIER money, they spent OUR FUCKING MONEY from taxes. christ, does verizon get you hot or something?

How this happened

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court ruled (4-3) recently that the FCC could keep the "information service" designation of Internet over cable - so Internet over cable is unregulated except by the local municipalities that give them franchise. The Supreme Court didn't make this rulling because it believed the designation was correct, but because the law was vague on this point and the Supreme Court was not willing to substitute its own interpretation of a vague law for the FCC's, despite the fact it seemed to disagree with the FCC, if you read betwen the lines.

Dispite the fact that the ruling repeatedly says it applies only to cable, the new FCC Chairman, Martin, decided it also applied to DSL. By designating DSL as an "information service", it becomes unregulated and the phone companies can cut off ISPs.

There are many legal problems with Chairman Martin's move - especially for the phone companies. And Congress might not like losing billions of dollars in Universal Services Funds (a tax on DSL, but not on cable, that will just disappear).

But the main problem is that the copper over which DSL travels was paid with rate payer dollars to a monopoly, AT&T. When AT&T was broken up and the Bell companies formed, the Bell companies were given the copper - they never paid for it. So in 1996, a new telecommunication act was passed that said the Bells had to share the copper with other companies that wanted to provide services over it. Now the FCC has ruled they don't have to share.

So what happens when you have only two monopoly sources for broadband - DSL and cable? Look at gas prices and you'll get a clue. Prices will first stablize to preserve market shares. Then they will start inching up, both DSL and cable, and keep going up as long as neither monopoly is stupid enough to try to use price to alter market share.

How about port/server blocking?

[jc42]

One thing I notice in the FCC's release:

(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; ...

This sounds like it's saying that the phone/cable companies can no longer do port blocking, and can't kick you off for running a server.

The main reason I subscribe to speakeasy is that they promise to not block ports, and they encourage you to run servers. Most ISPs, including almost all phone/cable companies, have a TOS that makes it illegal to run your own servers. They also block at least ports 25 and 80. You have to relay email through their servers, and you can't legally run a web server at all.

It'll be interesting to see if this is enforced. Of course, if say Verizon or Comcast terminated your access because you run a web server, they could still just say "Yeah, it may be illegal. You're welcome to take us to court. In 5 or ten years, if you win, you'll get your access back. BTW, you'd better have a good team of lawyers."

I also wonder what that "needs of law enforcement" means? Do we all have to provide a standard backdoor to our system, accessible to any law enforcement agency (and anyone else who knows the access protocol)?

While I'd like to think that the FCC has the interests of us "consumers" at heart, I'm not really sure that this is their motive here. Not if they're acting to kill off the ISPs that provide unfettered access, handing total control over to the companies that have historically blocked full access, and saying "Trust us".

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[jc42]

Phone companies have no right to whine they have to share the wires.

Maybe not, but they do have the right to bribe the government to do things their way.

Of course, these days "bribe" is often spelled "campaign contribution".

Qwest/Comcast != Internet Service

[Anonymous Coward]

If Qwest is anything like Verizon, neither they nor Comcast are ISPs. They do no provide Internet Service. They provide you with web and e-mail access.

A real ISP provides you with some amount of bandwidth, running Internet Protocol, period, full stop.

It doesn't make you run Windows. It doesn't require you to install MSN. It doesn't prevent you from running servers (within reason). It doesn't force you through their proxies to access those limited approved services. It doesn't periodically change your IP address.

I'm not saying that the great unwashed masses aren't happy with what Qwest/Comcast provide. I'm just saying don't call it "Internet Service".

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[Thing 1]

Thanks for responding. Are you sure about what you state? Have you done (or seen) modeling studies that show that this is how the network degrades when it's user over capacity?

I'm not being sarcastic: I haven't seen these studies, so I don't know. If I was running the nodes, I'd probably put no more than 5 to 10 miles between them for similar reasons; and I'm sure there'd be some sort of cellular-type switching protocol, to keep the nodes talking to their closest access point. Also, I'd want bandwidth limits, exactly so that a single Kazaa user would not take out the network.

Why do you say "You never want to rely on wireless connections for longer than you have to"? I see us moving to wireless-only in the future. As with ParasiteNet, if we have enough links in between, we can get anywhere (albeit with latency). Perhaps the latency is why you'd want wires?

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

As for WiMax degration, its a numbers issue.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX you're looking at about 70mbit/s spread across 31 miles. Thats just not enough to compete with the 6/.7 most cable providers sell, and nowhere near what you'll get with other wired solutions (Verizion FIOS at 15/5mbit).
Itd be great to be able to quickly google on your laptop from the car or fact check with wikipedia, but to sustain your irc client and try and download anything over it would be too painful day to day.

The overlapping nodes idea might work, or you might end up with serious signal overlap causing packet loss. We're still talking about mostly unlicensed spectrum here, anyone can use it for anything they want even if it ruins your service. (see 802.11b + cordless phones)

As for my dislike of relying on wireless, it is mostly latency and general reliability. As more and more people move to wireless networks, the quality degrades worse and worse, ask anyone living in dorms how their own 802.11b network is doing and you'll find most just give up.
I'm biased in that I do a lot of online gaming and do most of my real work over ssh rather than locally, so I feel a random 15 second connection drop or ping spike more than most people, but theyre definately there.