FCC Weighs Net Access Charge Decision

An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is considering a request from AT&T to lift restrictions on the types of charges they can level against competitors that use their infrastructure. The organization had previously allowed that for Verizon by virtue of a deadlock, and Ma Bell now hopes to see similar treatment. 'All the requests have been strongly opposed by smaller rivals such as Sprint Nextel, Time Warner Telecommunications and XO Communications. These competitors argue that they have few alternatives to get access to the high-speed lines they need, and are being charged more and more by the dominant carriers.'"

Comments

I'd hate to see it

[techpawn]

Analysts say the five-member FCC is split over the issue between Republicans and Democrats. One of the three Republicans, Robert McDowell, holds the swing vote.

I know it's too much to ask but can this be decided on merit and not on partisanship?

Re:I'd hate to see it

[gurps_npc]

There are only a few things that governments are asked to rule on:

1. Things that we don't know any answer to. Here, there is no merit, just partisanship arguing about which of several proposed hyopethical fixes we should attempt.

2. Things that we know the answer, but it is too expensive to do without sacrificing other things of value (which could mean effort/privacy as well as simply expensive in cash). Here, partisanship again determines what we do, because while we know what to do, some are willing to spend the effort/cash/privacy others are not and the decisions about it being worth it or not is at the heart of the difference between the two political sides.

3. Things we know the answer to, it is not too expensive, but the costs are born by people other than those who benefit (and the those people have political power to fight the change). For example, Tobocco industry fighting against taxes and regulations. While 'partisanship' is not inherenent in this case, generally the entrenched interests will frame their lies to appeal to one side, over the other.

4. Things we know the answer to, is not too expensive, and no entrenched existing side supports the problem. These things get done immediately, with no partisanship. They also tend to be obvious and small (remember, they must be relatively cheap).

This particular question is a mix of type 1 and type 3 questions. The existience of ignorance makes it dificult for merit to solve the issue, and the lies of the industry are focused on Republicans, beause of a general pro-business reputation (not really earned in my opinion) of Republicans.

Good

[BlowHole666]

You may think this is a bad thing because the cost of internet service may go up. However if companies like Sprint/Nextel have to pay more for the use of AT&Ts' lines maybe this cost will either put them out of business (not the goal of my post) or give them the boost to design new technology and make the market more competitive.

In essence Sprint is just a reseller of at&ts' product. Let them come out with their own product to compete.

I am in no way picking on sprint. I am just saying a little competition in this area is a good thing. Maybe more fiber being laid, better service, higher speeds, and new technology will come of this. OR we could all get corn holed by higher prices.

Re:Good

[mtp85]

My prediction is that we all get cornholed. Laying out new infrastructure (especially in a country as large as the U.S.) is a massively expensive proposition, and that significantly tips the scales in favor of the behemoth companies like AT&T. This is just as true for the core 'net infrastructure as it is for last mile lines, where consumers have their choice of oligopoly to patronize. Designing new technology is not going to stop market forces from working against progress.

Re:Good

[p0tat03]

I've always wondered why the government can't own the fibre like they do the roads. Like road tolls, people must pay a certain fee to the government in order to use these pipes, which may be included into the price of their internet service. Providers can maintain and expand the network, and money spent doing so can be applied as a toll credit (i.e. if AT&T spends $2bn expanding the network, then they can get an equivalent break on gov't line tolls). This way companies are not penalized for building up the infrastructure, while maintaining competitiveness for smaller players.

Here in Canada (Ontario only, actually), our DSL providers are forced to rent out their lines at government regulated wholesale rates. This has encouraged the growth of small ISPs that provide excellent service for less cost. I myself pay $20 CAD a month for service that Bell charges $50 a month for, and I get better phone support to boot.

IMHO this should also apply to the wireless spectrum. Stop auctioning these things off and simply charge tolls for any provider to use your network. A per-device-per-month scheme would work well.

Re:Good

[russotto]

Satellite internet sucks because the speed of light is too low. I don't see anyone getting around that any time soon.

The small companies are the regulation

[dave562]

The small companies are the ones that are keeping the major carriers from gouging the end user. They are able to resell the product at a lower price which keeps the major carriers honest. It is true that they don't offer anything different than the major carriers. I don't see that as being a bad thing. By offering the same thing and doing it at a lower price, they keep the market competitive.

Poltical grabass

[evann]

The cost of the internet services WILL go up. All these companies do is pass along the costs to consumers. Lay new fiber? Long term maybe, but why the hell should we keep having to pay more and more to monopolies. Why should new lines have to be run for every company trying to compete in the market? U.S. already pays too much for cable and internet services. The fact that the voting is split between Rep/Dems should tell you that the committee cannot think for themselves anyway.

You Know It

[MightyMartian]

I have every confidence that the FCC will sell out the consumer. Their sole purpose, and the sole purpose of the US government, is to keep the money rolling in for big business.

Let the FCC completely fuck over the communications industry. At some point someone will have to step in, cut AT&T into pieces again, rejig the process so that consumers aren't getting fucked due to the whores in Congress and the FCC taking it up the ass for Big Telco Inc.

Of course, that too will change as a new generation of political whores get into Congress and again sell out the only people that they should actually even consider to Big Telco Inc.

I suggest you stop complaining about it and

[shelterpaw]

do something about it. I wrote the FCC this morning pleading my case as why they should not relax regulations. I explained the lack of service and choices currently available. I went a step farther by asking them to reevaluate the ownership of tax payer funded lines and lines which reside on public/government property. Wether what I wrote makes a difference in their decision making or not, I at leased voiced my opinion.

Re:Wholesale vs retail

[enrevanche]

The prices that ATT charges competitors is profitable to ATT. This is just a big smoke screen. They actually want to eliminate competition so that they can raise prices in a less competitive market. The fact is that ATT has an artificially created monopoly on the last mile. The fact is they manipulated the government in the 30s and 40s to create the monopoly. This is not a market that is easy to make competitive. It requires regulation because we have only two choices (at most) for physical connections to the end user.

If they get what they want, they will eliminate all but the cable company. The US will have the worst (if it doesn't already) broadband of any developed country (including those with lower population density.)

ATT only paid for a portion of the infrastructure that they own, most of it is paid for when new construction while it was put in and the government. It was paid for by high consumer prices made capable by their monopoly position. They government handed it to them. They bribe elected government officials with campaign and other donations. They manipulate, they misrepresent etc.

The real reason they won't effectively compete is because they have dreams of re-realizing the near complete monopoly position they once had. How do you think they got the government to allow all of these mergers and re-mergers. This is not for competition. But they will call say it's for "competition".

Re:How is this allowed?

[Scudsucker]

Well, lets see. There's the venerable Commerce Clause, and these lines run across state lines. Then there's the fact that the lines are run across public land and private land through the use of eminent domain. If the telecos don't want regulation, first they can give back all the subsidies they were granted to build the infrastructure in the first place. Then they can start paying rent on the land they use. But somehow I doubt AT&T will start cutting me checks anytime soon.