Here you go, found this right here on slashdot..
Update Local telephone companies won a major victory Friday when an appeals court overturned a Federal Communications Commission ruling that requires them to share lines with their competitors.
"This eliminates line sharing, which has been a tremendous fiscal pain in the neck," said Bill McCloskey, director of media relations for BellSouth.
Other Baby Bell companies like Verizon Communications and SBC Communications also consider the ruling a resolution to an issue that's been going on for years. Friday's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia supported the Bells' challenge to a 1999 ruling from the FCC.
Analysts say the deal is a victory for a class of telecom companies known as incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), but it could be a setback for interexchange carriers (IXCs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), particularly Covad Communications. The ruling will also strengthen telecom companies' position against cable companies. But it's not the end of the regulatory battle, by any means, analysts added.
The ruling will likely open up two more areas of controversy: It is likely to delay the FCC review of its rules on other unbundled network elements, and it will set up a battle over whether individual states can make up their own rules about bundling beyond what the FCC mandates.
"Today's decision is, like a number of court decisions, simply a battle in a much longer war," said Blair Levin, an analyst at equity research firm Legg Mason.
The ruling also overturned a 1999 rule that required dominant carriers to share a portion of a local line into a home so that the customer could have a different provider for DSL (digital subscriber line) service, but keep their local telephone provider.
"We are gratified that the court particularly recognized the level of competition Bell companies face from cable companies to provide broadband services," Herschel Abbott, BellSouth's vice president governmental affairs, said in a prepared statement.
But AT&T called the ruling "out of step with recent positive developments promoting competition" and said in a prepared statement that the ruling "will bring added uncertainty to an industry that is just beginning to show signs of a rebound." Unbundling of technologies through line sharing is necessary to competition, the company said, adding that it will work "diligently with the FCC" to demonstrate that.
Levin wrote in a research note that "the ruling could also disrupt the plans of AT&T and WorldCom--which purchased the assets of DSL providers NorthPoint Communications and Rhythms NetConnections, respectively--to move forward with DSL offerings to consumers and businesses."
The ruling also overturned a 1999 rule that required dominant carriers to share a portion of a local line into a home so that the customer could have a different provider for DSL service, but keep their local telephone provider.
Cable companies have had an advantage, since the FCC doesn't require them to share their lines. Part of Friday's decision said that the FCC's earlier ruling wasn't acceptable because the commission hadn't considered the presence of cable modem service in its decision that line sharing was necessary for competition.
Levin also said the ruling leaves open the question of the ongoing obligation of ILECs to honor contracts for line sharing which could have a negative impact on Covad. But Covad representatives said they didn't expect to see any effect from the ruling.
The decision only sends the issue back to the FCC, which "has a history of strong support for line-sharing policy," Covad said in a statement.
"We believe we have a continued right to line sharing under our agreements with the phone companies and antitrust law," Covad Executive Vice President and General Counsel Dhruv Khanna said.
Levin agreed that the ruling was not definitive, but said FCC Chairman Michael Powell is moving toward a position that is more favorable for the Baby Bells.
You must work for one of the large providers.
That is about the most ignorant comment I have seen in a while. As with everything else broadband should be going down in price not up.
It's all about greed at the upper level. The cable companys have full command of certain areas and they are just waiting for the right time to stick it to all of us. Imagine if you were the ONLY broadband provider in a large area of a city, no DSL options, nothing' only cable.
You as a customer have no leverage, NOTHING and they know it.
Now mix in the fact that the baby Bells are trying to revert the law that makes them share their CO's with DSL providers and you could easily end up with two major players in every local market, and even worse working together to keep prices high.
Its coming..The other providers are dropping like flys, running out of money marketing new customers and fighting the monopolys in court to keep access.
Its sickening really, and the only thing you can do is support the outside competition if possible because the more people that use the other providers for DSL the harder it will be for the local monopolies to take over.
Thats another reason I got rid of my cable and got DSL when I got the chance, and I did not go with Bellsouth even though they were somewhat cheaper.
Let me also say that I think AT&T broadband is by far the WORST company in the business, bar none! Their network is latent, there support lacks any inteligent people, they raised their rates last year although offered nothing more in service, and they provide no options at all for their customers.
Oh I forgot to mention that they were in some type of trouble situation at least once a month.
The one I loved the most is when they somehow lost the in addr arpa zone for my entire ip block for two weeks. Try explaining reverse DNS to these idiots..
Anyhow the moral of the story is that if you didn't work for one of these over grown shit pile companys you would not have made that comment, but I'm sure you are one of the idiots that I have already dealt with on the other end of the phone.
So get a life, I'm sure you don't feel that its time we pay more for a gallon of gas too?? Hell we have been riding a wave of moderate prices up till a few months ago....
Slashdot Mirror
Here you go, found this right here on slashdot.. Update Local telephone companies won a major victory Friday when an appeals court overturned a Federal Communications Commission ruling that requires them to share lines with their competitors. "This eliminates line sharing, which has been a tremendous fiscal pain in the neck," said Bill McCloskey, director of media relations for BellSouth. Other Baby Bell companies like Verizon Communications and SBC Communications also consider the ruling a resolution to an issue that's been going on for years. Friday's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia supported the Bells' challenge to a 1999 ruling from the FCC. Analysts say the deal is a victory for a class of telecom companies known as incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), but it could be a setback for interexchange carriers (IXCs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), particularly Covad Communications. The ruling will also strengthen telecom companies' position against cable companies. But it's not the end of the regulatory battle, by any means, analysts added. The ruling will likely open up two more areas of controversy: It is likely to delay the FCC review of its rules on other unbundled network elements, and it will set up a battle over whether individual states can make up their own rules about bundling beyond what the FCC mandates. "Today's decision is, like a number of court decisions, simply a battle in a much longer war," said Blair Levin, an analyst at equity research firm Legg Mason. The ruling also overturned a 1999 rule that required dominant carriers to share a portion of a local line into a home so that the customer could have a different provider for DSL (digital subscriber line) service, but keep their local telephone provider. "We are gratified that the court particularly recognized the level of competition Bell companies face from cable companies to provide broadband services," Herschel Abbott, BellSouth's vice president governmental affairs, said in a prepared statement. But AT&T called the ruling "out of step with recent positive developments promoting competition" and said in a prepared statement that the ruling "will bring added uncertainty to an industry that is just beginning to show signs of a rebound." Unbundling of technologies through line sharing is necessary to competition, the company said, adding that it will work "diligently with the FCC" to demonstrate that. Levin wrote in a research note that "the ruling could also disrupt the plans of AT&T and WorldCom--which purchased the assets of DSL providers NorthPoint Communications and Rhythms NetConnections, respectively--to move forward with DSL offerings to consumers and businesses." The ruling also overturned a 1999 rule that required dominant carriers to share a portion of a local line into a home so that the customer could have a different provider for DSL service, but keep their local telephone provider. Cable companies have had an advantage, since the FCC doesn't require them to share their lines. Part of Friday's decision said that the FCC's earlier ruling wasn't acceptable because the commission hadn't considered the presence of cable modem service in its decision that line sharing was necessary for competition. Levin also said the ruling leaves open the question of the ongoing obligation of ILECs to honor contracts for line sharing which could have a negative impact on Covad. But Covad representatives said they didn't expect to see any effect from the ruling. The decision only sends the issue back to the FCC, which "has a history of strong support for line-sharing policy," Covad said in a statement. "We believe we have a continued right to line sharing under our agreements with the phone companies and antitrust law," Covad Executive Vice President and General Counsel Dhruv Khanna said. Levin agreed that the ruling was not definitive, but said FCC Chairman Michael Powell is moving toward a position that is more favorable for the Baby Bells.
You must work for one of the large providers. That is about the most ignorant comment I have seen in a while. As with everything else broadband should be going down in price not up. It's all about greed at the upper level. The cable companys have full command of certain areas and they are just waiting for the right time to stick it to all of us. Imagine if you were the ONLY broadband provider in a large area of a city, no DSL options, nothing' only cable. You as a customer have no leverage, NOTHING and they know it. Now mix in the fact that the baby Bells are trying to revert the law that makes them share their CO's with DSL providers and you could easily end up with two major players in every local market, and even worse working together to keep prices high. Its coming..The other providers are dropping like flys, running out of money marketing new customers and fighting the monopolys in court to keep access. Its sickening really, and the only thing you can do is support the outside competition if possible because the more people that use the other providers for DSL the harder it will be for the local monopolies to take over. Thats another reason I got rid of my cable and got DSL when I got the chance, and I did not go with Bellsouth even though they were somewhat cheaper. Let me also say that I think AT&T broadband is by far the WORST company in the business, bar none! Their network is latent, there support lacks any inteligent people, they raised their rates last year although offered nothing more in service, and they provide no options at all for their customers. Oh I forgot to mention that they were in some type of trouble situation at least once a month. The one I loved the most is when they somehow lost the in addr arpa zone for my entire ip block for two weeks. Try explaining reverse DNS to these idiots.. Anyhow the moral of the story is that if you didn't work for one of these over grown shit pile companys you would not have made that comment, but I'm sure you are one of the idiots that I have already dealt with on the other end of the phone. So get a life, I'm sure you don't feel that its time we pay more for a gallon of gas too?? Hell we have been riding a wave of moderate prices up till a few months ago....