Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

FCC's Triennial Review Released 123

Posted by timothy from the navel-gazing-for-meddlers dept.
rednaxela writes "The FCC, after six months of deliberation, released the Triennial Review order on the evening of August 21. The Order makes substantial changes to the rules governing the obligations of the regional bell operating companies (i.e., SBC, BellSouth, Verizon and Qwest) to lease their networks to the competitive local exchange carriers (e.g., MCI, AT&T) for the provision of local phone service and, perhaps more interestingly to this audience, broadband. Brief summary here, link to the order and the FCC Commissioners' statements at www.fcc.gov."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC's Triennial Review Released More

FCC's Triennial Review Released

Comments Filter:

  • Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyrdium ( 670229 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @08:14PM (#6775261) Homepage
    In February, the FCC freed the ILECs from a requirement that they lease at regulated discounted rates the portion of their networks that competitors use to provide Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (i.e., broadband) service.
    This means that, with a decrease in competition, we'll see a nice big hike in the cost of DSL... Welcome to America, where the government bows to the will of the big companies...
    • Congress needs to make it illegal for corporations to buy votes from Congress members!

      • American Dream (Score:3, Insightful)

        by segment ( 695309 )

        Congress will smile in your face while sticking it to you. What makes you think that if someone was willing to coyly place a couple of hundred thousand in the pocket of some congress*person*, that congress*person* (male/female) is not going to either take it, or seriously contemplate taking it. This is not to say that every last one of those in congress are schemers, but you have to understand, there is no guarantee that anyone will be in office the next term, so many times this feeds into the minds of thos
        • It was a joke. Next time, read the rest of the thread before replying.

          And yes, I am pissed off at Slashdot right now.
          • It was a joke. Next time, read the rest of the thread before replying.

            Hmmmm...not a very good joke. People take you seriously if it's not clear you're trying to be funny. Then again, no rational person who's ever followed the link in your sig (which IS a fucking joke) would ever take you seriously...

            • My point was that segment [slashdot.org]should have read the rest of the thread before he replied. It's a practice you should generally get into when you're reading Slashdot.

              What do you have against me, anyway? More importantly, what do you have against this [newusconstitution.org]?
              • What do you have against me, anyway?

                This is slashdot. I base my opinions of others on whatever information is available, even if it is all just superficial stuff. Stuff like an apparent belief in:

                More importantly, what do you have against this[www.newusconstitution.org]?

                It's sophomoric pablum. Simplistic populist analysis of a complex system. Suggested solution to problems of abuse of the current constitution? Expungement of unconstitutional laws? No! Throw it all out! Set up a crappy NEW constitution

                • Perhaps you should give specific examples of why you think that it is "garbage", so that I can reinterpret them in a new light. Simply getting rid of the unconstitutional laws will not help for long, as Congress will simply pass them again in a forms.

                  We all know that allowing laws like the DMCA to be passed is definetly NOT what Ben Franklin had in mind for a free state. And while the New Constitution isn't perfect, I would rather have that than this. [gnu.org]
                  • Simply getting rid of the unconstitutional laws will not help for long, as Congress will simply pass them again in a forms.

                    Pfff! That logic makes as much sense as a kid who says "why should I take a bath when I'm just going to get dirty again tomorrow?" The point is, we keep giving the kid a bath whenever he gets too dirty; we don't throw the kid out and start over. Remember this quote: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

                    Perhaps you should give specific examples of why you think that it is "gar

        • Congress*people* are human (I think) and as animals, humans do what they can to survive. Some methods might be more shallow than others.

          Unfortunately, some of us humans are subject to punishment for breaking the law trying to survive, and some of us are not.
    • I took a look at your "new constitution"... you want to outlaw credit?? The people who came up with that have to be a bunch of kooks who understand nothing about economics. The mind boggles...
    • big hike in the cost of DSL
      It's worse than that for some of us. For me, it's Covad or nothing. Qwest will not sell me DSL at all. Covad provides me with 768k SDSL, but Qwest says I'm out of range.

      If this ruling meant an extra $20/month for DSL I'd grit and bear it, but most likely it means Covad will finally go under and I'll be back on dialup. Yay.

      • Re:Uh oh... (Score:2, Informative)

        by miscGeek ( 594829 )
        Dude, consider yourself lucky. The only boadband I can get is satellite and they really gouge you because they know you don't have a choice. Takes about $600 for the equipment. Yes, you have to buy the equipment :(
        • Yes, I am lucky -- until Covad goes away!

          My particular type of DSL is still regulated, so this FCC thing isn't a direct threat to me, but 40% of Covad's business is line-shared ADSL which is what just got deregulated. Qwest (my ILEC) will most likely continue line-sharing, because they're so backward and primitive about DSL they'd just as soon let Covad take care of it. But Covad is hanging by its fingers on the edge of bankruptcy and you can bet Verizon will stomp on those fingers at its earliest opport

          • Yeah, good point. Sorry, about my little rant. Guess, I'm just a little pissed that I can't get DSL where I'm at. The whole jealousy thing :) Of course I did choose to live in the middle of nowhere :) Good luck to you! :)

      • Re:Uh oh... (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Move to Korea and get 40 megabit for 32$ a month. Japan is quite a step up from what you get in the US as well. link [eagercon.com].

    • Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )
      In February, the FCC freed the ILECs from a requirement that they lease at regulated discounted rates the portion of their networks that competitors use to provide Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (i.e., broadband) service.

      This means that, with a decrease in competition, we'll see a nice big hike in the cost of DSL... Welcome to America, where the government bows to the will of the big companies...

      What competition are you talking about? Where? IS there DSL competition? As far as I know it costs about the

    • In February, the FCC freed the ILECs from a requirement that they lease at regulated discounted rates the portion of their networks that competitors use to provide Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (i.e., broadband) service.

      This means that, with a decrease in competition, we'll see a nice big hike in the cost of DSL... Welcome to America, where the government bows to the will of the big companies...

      Unless I misread the FCC order, it isn't what it's portrayed to be.

      Before the order, the ILECs (Incumbent Lo
      • You forget that it is basically impossible for CLEC's to install DSLAMs at all POP's because there is "insufficient room" yet when the ILEC wants to expand their equipment there is plenty of rack space. While I agree that the ILEC should not be required to provide networking services for less than the cost of deployment I DO think they should be required to provide undundled access to the DSLAM. Also every expert that isn't employed by the ILECs has stated that this will do NOTHING to speed up broadband rol
        • You forget that it is basically impossible for CLEC's to install DSLAMs at all POP's because there is "insufficient room" yet when the ILEC wants to expand their equipment there is plenty of rack space.

          And when there isn't "sufficient room" for a CLEC's equipment the ILEC will be required either to MAKE more room or to rent their own equipment at the regulated price. Want to bet whether there will be room? B-)

          The key is to make it possible for the ILEC to make money on leasing and expanding the legacy
      • It;s about time someone that understands the actual system speaks out. Most every comment about this subject normally comes from misinformed people or agents of the CLECs. No company should be forced to sell a product or service for less than it costs to provide(no matter what business they are in).

        Now the RBOCs can add DSLAMs and fiber where they want without having to give it below cost to to anyone for less than it cost to provide.

  • Haven't we been through this before? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @08:17PM (#6775273) Homepage Journal
    If I recall correctly, the local carrier for the Northwest United States, Qwest, has been opening their lines to competitors willing to provide DSL service. Qwest then would sign them up as re-sellers of the service, and after that the "Screw Your Friends(r)" program would take place.

    First, Qwest would charge the competitive ISP a sign-up charge for each customer, so basically when signing up for DSL service, you would have the option of (a) monthly payment + sign up fee from an ISP or (b) the same monthly payment and no sign up fee from Qwest.

    Second, the phone lines are opened to competitors, but they are still owned by the phone company. Meaning that whenever your DSL goes down, if you've signed up with an independent ISP, your support would be pretty much useless. "Ehh, yeah, it shows the service as down, but it's Qwest problem, we can't do anything with it, it's not our server". Meaning the only time the tech support would be really helpful is when their server goes down and they are actually in control. Hardly an incentive.

    Perhaps a better solution is building dark fiber on government money and then having counties charge any phone company lease access fees. But government historically has been inefficient on managing any kind of infrastructure, just look at its state in the former Soviet Union countries.

    • Re:Haven't we been through this before? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @08:47PM (#6775391)
      Some of your points have a touch of validity, but there are some flaws in your thinking that I wanted to address.

      First, Qwest would charge the competitive ISP a sign-up charge for each customer,

      The first thing you should think about here is that Qwest probably leases to resellers using a different strategy than what they use to market to their own customers.

      If you were a telephone company, and you were required to lease service to a competitor, wouldn't you hit them with every cost as that cost was incurred? When you sign up a new DSL customer, you have to perform some amount of work to get that customer set up with DSL service. It is logical to bill the reseller for that work, and to proceed billing him monthly an amount that reflects your maintenance.

      Either way, the DSL provider (Qwest or the reseller) eats money at install-time. Qwest may "waive" that setup fee for a 1- or 2-year contract, figuring they would recoup those costs as the user's service continues. Your DSL reseller is also perfectly free to eat that cost for the same contractual arrangement. They just may not choose to. This isn't Qwest being evil, it's your reseller choosing to sell their service differently.

      Meaning that whenever your DSL goes down, if you've signed up with an independent ISP, your support would be pretty much useless.

      Don't confuse your ISP service with your DSL service! The phone company is there soley to provide physical-layer (DSL) and/or link-layer (ATM) service. The ISP is usually on an ATM end-point and provides IP service. Even with the ILECs, the ISP is a separate entity, and while they may work harder to keep the appearance of one smoothly-running operation, the ISP side of the house has no more control over the DSL side than your independent ISP does.

      In both cases, the ISP will tell you that a DSL problem has to be resolved by the telco. The telco will tell you IP service issues will need to be resolved by the ISP.

      Perhaps a better solution is building dark fiber on government money and then having counties charge any phone company lease access fees.

      I agree with you here. I'd like to see some thought given to running that "last mile copper" like any other public utility, like water and sewer lines. Let that utility sell service on those lines to whoever wants to use them.
      • OK I will have to disagree with the fee structure so far at least in Connecticut I work with several small and midsized ISP's (regional) the DSL fee structure as it stands is in the telcos favor. First off there is a fairly steep ATM access price thats equivilent to a leased line and then some generaly in the neighborhood or 30-45k for an OC3 ATM monthly with a good 100k install fee. Then they want 35 per line plus an install fee. General hassels getting service and support that you see with there own se
      • With a Republican government? You must be mad.

        Come to think of it, it wouldn't stand much chance with a government run by Democrats, either.

    • Libertarian myths (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard&ecis,com> on Saturday August 23, 2003 @09:26PM (#6775494) Homepage
      But government historically has been inefficient on managing any kind of infrastructure, just look at its state in the former Soviet Union countries.

      Google on the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Look into how South Korea managed to get broadband into the majority of its homes and businesses. How about the examples of municipal power companies opening up their fiber optic networks to consumers? Or the Federal Interstate network?

      Just because the government runs it doesn't mean it's bad, just because it's privatized doesn't mean it's good.

      Personally, I think the idea of using public money to build dark fiber infrastructure and leasing it to private companies is a good one.

      One thing it is reasonable for government to spend our money on is something that'll improve the economy for everybody, even for people who don't directly use the service in question.

  • Pluses and Minuses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @08:22PM (#6775290)
    Im not happy about the closing off of competition, but in the case of infrastructure services does it make sense ? Telco services are something that need to be there everyday rain or shine and the companies that provide them need to be healthy enough to provide that certainty.

    In my local market several discount providers have gone bankrupt. This has resulted in large scale disruption of the businesses that relied on their services.

    You have to ask is it worth it to risk a vital service just to provide an opportunity for undercapitalized, newcomers. Look at worldcom, quest etc etc. At least when I pick up my phone I get a dial tone.
    • Sadly, I have to agree with you. Since 1999 my company has gone through a succession of four different providers offering basic (not discount) DSL and/or T1 Internet connectivity to our offices. Each one either went out of business or withdrew from the market forcing us to find a new broadband provider.

      In general, I would rate the services provided by these companies as extremely poor compared to the voice services provided by our local telco, PacBell/SBC, which keep our phone systems running reliably 24
    • Granted, that telephone service you ordered from your local carrier has a few nice features:
      * you get a fairly permanent phone number and the ability to receive incoming calls
      * there's no "activation procedure" required before each session of telephone use
      * 99.9999% uptime!
      * you can choose any long distance carrier
      * the network has sufficient capacity that under normal circumstances, you always get a dialtone when you pick up the phone, and your phone always rings when someone calls you
      * no arbitrary restri
      • * you get a fairly permanent phone number and the ability to receive incoming calls
        as Mandated by law.

        * there's no "activation procedure" required before each session of telephone use
        as Mandated by law.

        * 99.9999% uptime!
        as Mandated by law.

        * you can choose any long distance carrier
        as Mandated by law.

        * the network has sufficient capacity that under normal circumstances, you always get a dialtone when you pick up the phone, and your phone always rings when someone calls you
        as Mandated by law.
    • I have bell south, when I pick up my phone I have a 1 in 6 chance that there won't be dial tone. Oh yeah, and bellsouth is one of the "healthy" ILECSs. Considering the blatant incompetence of the ILEC here - and the fact the I work for one of those "unerfunded" companies I place my bet on healthy competition.

      Tired of being raped by BellSouth,

      cluge

  • Stop, you're killing me! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @08:24PM (#6775301) Homepage
    Woohoo, hahaa, heehehehe

    Robert Quinn, AT&T's [T] vice president of regulatory affairs, said the FCC's released order "ensures competitors access to essential network elements as long as impairments to competition continue and thus guarantees consumers a choice of local service providers

    Whaha - who else does he write comedy for? Hehehe.

    Verizon completely gates MY access to DSL, and has said "NO", even thoough I'm less than 2 miles from a big urban co.
    • You forgot the very next quote from the man:

      On the FCC's broadband portion of the order, Quinn said the document "was far less bold."

      Good God, regulation so bad it can make ATT blush? This really is horrible.

  • Who keeps the metric system down? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is it just me, or does "Triennial Review Order" sound like some sort of secret society?

  • Doesn't matter if a deity told the Bells to play fairly and open up their lines, all that will end up happening is, the Bells will start a snowball effect of price hikes to companies who lease their services (re-sellers) in which they'll end up rather expensive.

  • Two commissioners think this is illegal.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxtelephony ( 141049 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @08:54PM (#6775406) Homepage
    I think the most telling bit from the article is this:

    "Somebody has to question how do you defend an order when the commissioners are writing appellate briefs for the other side," Brecher said. "They?ve got a problem. You?ve got two commissioners who believe what they have done is illegal and don?t have a problem articulating it. There is still a lot of uncertainty here."


    followed by this:



    Indeed, Commissioner Michael Copps was particularly harsh in his comments accompany the order's release. ?The bad news is that this decision plays fast and loose with the country?s broadband future.? Copps said. ?Make no mistake about it, today?s decision chokes off competition in broadband. Consumers, innovation, entrepreneurs and the Internet itself are going to suffer.

    ?Instead of preserving, protecting and defending competition, the Commission has torn away access to the network architectures that undergird broadband competition. As a result, consumers, including our nation?s small businesses-the engines of so much entrepreneurial activity and economic growth-may well be stuck without competitive choices and prices when it comes to critical broadband services. This is not a brave new world of broadband, but simply the old system of local monopoly dressed up in a digital cloak."


    So at least some of the commissioners there know and realize just what this new ruling has the potential to do, and who it will hurt. Too bad they appear to have been overruled in the process, either that or they were somehow 'encouraged' to go along with the ruling.

    Too bad most of the general populace has absolutely no interest in and no concern with things like this. Even worse, it seems more and more evident every day that most people seem to not be able to think for themselves.

    • WRONG! This is a good thing for broadband (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poptones ( 653660 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @09:12PM (#6775457) Journal
      Because with the inevitable rate hikes around the corner wireless startups become even more viable. It's an incredibly stupid idea thinking we can foster competition using decades old, obsolete infrastructure already owned by some of the most powerful lobbying orgs on the hill. The more attractive wireless becomes the sooner we can begin breaking free from that monster and the more innovations we will enjoy.

      Where I live there's a DSLAM 8 miles away and the fucking phone company - and the local ISPs - STILL don't offer DSL because no one will spend the money to spec the ancient crappy lines for service. I doubt being able to charge a bit more for a hundred potential customers is going to help that any. But the more wireless is used and developed, the faster it evolves. And wireless IS a potentially viable option out here - but it ain't there yet.

      Yeah, it sucks for people who live in the city and have to pay another ten bucks a month for DSL. Whoopdeefucking doo, at least you have service and the money to pay for it. When I lived in LA I still payed $80 a month to pacbell for shit service, which is likely more than most of you pay now. We don't need cheap DSL, because much of the country won't ever get it at ANY price - we need NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. It takes money to develop that infrastructure, and this decision will help provide it.

      • The idea that you can somehow mandate competion in a space where you have a natural monopoly is silly. You are better off either regulating the monopoly and wating for a technological revolution to sleep it away, or making it a public sector service (personally, i vote for the latter, even as a die hard market fanboy). Anything that requires massive lastmile and right of way issues really ought to be in the public sector, since they can use eminent domain to get that infrastructure in place, whereas thing
      • It's an incredibly stupid idea thinking we can foster competition using decades old, obsolete infrastructure already owned by some of the most powerful lobbying orgs on the hill.

        Demanding access to and proper use of wires the public paid for by protected monopoly is not stupid. Those lines were built at your expense and paid for many times over the price of free and fair compatition. The land used by the lines is public as well and regulations STILL make it difficult for competitiors to lay anything th

    • If it's only th large companys that are evil, explain SCO's actions and compare them to most CLECs out there.

    • My general rule of thumb: If AT&T is in favor of anything, that's a real bad sign for consumers.
  • no matter how many rules the FCC lays down regarding CLECs, I (as the LEC), can come up with 10 miles of paperwork to push to the CLEC when they want to provision a line. It's a useless gesture.
  • ... verzion is the only telco (providing rsidential and as far as i know commercial dsl) in northwest indiana, the only thing keeping them from charging more then (my total bills comes to:) 59.99 for 768/128, is comcasts cable.

    The reason my bill isnt less is because the verizon ISP cannot provide any more bandwidth then that of a 56k modem in my area, and even that isnt consistant, some people end up with no bandwidth while others (as close as 3 houses) expeirence full speed.

    Ive known people to get verzio

  • Help! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @11:34PM (#6775901)
    Consider this:

    The first change concerns the role of state regulators will have in deciding which elements of incumbent telcos' networks will be available to competitors on an unbundled basis at regulated wholesale rates. Originally, switching equipment wasn't going to be part of the menu of unbundled network elements (UNEs). However, yesterday's released order gives state officials authority to decide whether switching equipment should remain on the list of UNEs.

    Reading this, I conclude that Baby Bell local exchange switches may become available for leasing by competitors based on the whim of state regulators. This is an improvement for competitors, who before had no access to these switches, because they weren't "part of the menu". The last sentence throws a wrench in my interpretation by using the word "remain", which indicates that these local exchange switches are already available for leasing. Which is it?

    The second change involves the broadband market. In February, the FCC freed the ILECs from a requirement that they lease at regulated discounted rates the portion of their networks that competitors use to provide Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (i.e., broadband) service. The released version of the FCC's order retains a provision that allows competitors to lease complete ILEC lines for the provision of voice and DSL service, or to partner with other carriers that are the lines.

    My read of this is; back in February the FCC allowed the Baby Bells to stop leasing the equipment needed by competitors to provide DSL. Now, however, the FCC says the Baby Bells must allow competitors to lease these lines. That looks like a good thing. Is my interpretation correct?
    • My read of this is; back in February the FCC allowed the Baby Bells to stop leasing the equipment needed by competitors to provide DSL. Now, however, the FCC says the Baby Bells must allow competitors to lease these lines. That looks like a good thing. Is my interpretation correct?

      From what I recall fo the press coverage, the current status is that if you provide both voice and data/dsl across the lines you lease from the Baby Bells, they have to lease them to you. Otherwise if you only provide data/dsl s

  • As in terminal for DSL users wanting fair prices and decent service.

  • Gamers and other high bandwidth users? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ratfynk ( 456467 ) on Saturday August 23, 2003 @11:55PM (#6775948) Journal
    I just wonder if more gamers and other high bandwith users are not in the long run going to sink the availability of broadband to small towns. If all the XBoxs come on line how will the demands from low bandwith carrier remotes take the strain. The question is essentially if 400 local Xboxs come on a dsl server line all at once in Piddlesnort Georgia population 15,000 what happens to local service for internet essentials. 1. price increase 2. kaos Take your choice of the two. Especially if that load is the continous average.

    Can Bell South justify the cost to rework for the network load increase made by MCI and others to customers. This is not flame bait it is a realistic question. My take is that this forced access is not good. How can you force telcos to increase their small town infrastructure at unreasonable rates of return. You are looking to bankrupt them and then have communication kaos. Telcos were deregulated already it seems now ironic that AT&T is about to exact revenge! This is not healthy business practice it is war and will damage the American economy more than any simple deregulation.

    Beginrant Not to worry though if the baby bells go bankrupt. You can count on some Microsoft .NET buyout scheme to jump at the chance to serve us better!Endrant

    • Yes, Bellsouth is not an ISP and they already have the last mile infrastructure in Piddlesnort GA.
    • I wouldn't really call gamers high bandwidth users. Most online games don't use that much bandwidth. Latency is far more important from what I've seen. The actual bandwidth needed is probably under 128Kbps for a very good reliable connection. That's basically how much grandma uses browsing the web and downloading pictures of the grandkids.
    • Gaming generally doesn't take a lot of bandwidth unless you are running the server. A single T-1 can handle over 100 NWN players for instance. Figure $50/user * 400 game players = $20,000 that more than pays for the 4-5 T-1's they will need while playing and when they aren't playing that bandwidth can be used for web sessions. The only thing that really kills ISP's is people who run servers nonstop.
      • Problem 50 dollars a month to AT&T How much a month to the telco who then has to pay extra for internet pipes to the rest of the networks? In the case of small town America the economies of scale are not possible. Unless the small towners pay currently about 2 times the rate where there are big pipes around. The ping times will be the shits too where the town is still using older switching and longer land lines. Even though the bandwidth might be just barely there, you will see lots signing on then most
        • Acutlay if you ever looked at how DSL works smalls towns take a one time cost to increase bandwith. DSL works as follows:

          Home "Modem" takes Ethernet frames stips off the ethernet bits and adds ATM headers at layer 2 and throws it onto the actual DSL line.

          The DSLAM general owned by the incumbant telco taks the DSL signaling and puts it into the ATM cloud.

          The allready exisitng ATM out of town infrastructure they backhaul this to whever the DSL providers decide to hook up and via whatever sized pipe the pr
          • The way I see it is this we have created the possibility for wide internet broadband. However the rural situation is too complicated. The telcos that supply broadband to smaller centers will need to use limiters to make things work, and we all know how much limiters are loved by gamers. Right now I am in the City and I have a 170kbs cap and my ups are about 40kbs. I can live with that gamers won't. I only pay about $25 a month US or $38 Canuck bucks. To get what the gamers demand I will need to pay about $4
            • Well I'm all for the XBOX taking yet another dive. Otherwise do your realy expect something more than 170 for 25 a month when quality bandwith costs about 80 a meg at the pipe? DSL and cable should be pushing for a more capable routing protocal than BGPv4 thats when we can get away from the Teir one providers that get to set the prices for bandwith. Once small DSL providers can get meshed together with tier twos and have a lot of routing policys and thats sensitive to internal bandwith. Thats the day wh
              • Here is an interesting thought; if rural bandwith for gaming can not satisfy the goof gamers then the rural population of kids will discouver the true value of the net. Education and discourse, not highspeed pics and music or gaming. The result; small town rural super wise and educated kids and city morons! Guess thats why Abe came from a hick background. He had more quality time to learn. Same thing goes for Sam Clemens, and one hell of a lot of others. The real source of greatness, truly is down on the fa

  • translation (Score:4, Funny)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Sunday August 24, 2003 @12:35AM (#6776051)

    Deregulation = BEND OVER this won't hurt a bit. Trust me, you'll like it.

  • I'm know there have been heaps of comments on the situation here in Aus with the incumbant Telco screwing consumers, businesses and resellers with an atrocious level of customer service.

    I also love the US ./'ers telling us that's because we are socialists.

    All through my Eco degree they told us that nothing is as efficient as a perfectly competative free market with no Govt. intervention. It just wasn't until third year they admitted that one of those markets still had to be found in the wild!

    The last I h

  • "It simply surrenders to the wishes of the incumbent telephone monopolies and grants far-reaching and premature deregulation," Quinn said. "Consumers will pay for this lack of FCC resolve in the form of higher rates, less choice and lower quality service."

    With the love of business and business' large contributions to the republican party, [opensecrets.org] why, exactly is this a shock? All this proves is that republicans are more honest then democrats. Republicans stay bought. [opensecrets.org]

  • I use bbs [bbsc.net] wireless connection for my Internet. 384k/384k is ok, sometimes they bump me up to 2MBPS/2MBPS but I suspect it's an accident..
    I use packet 8 [packet8.net] for my VoiP & PSTN telephone calls (all telephone use). IT's $19.95/month, no contract, and unlimited long distance to US/Canada/Alaska/Hawaii. And International rates are about 50% of the cheapest competitors.
    There are issues with VoiP, it's not a 100% system, but neither was our local phone, and for a savings for me of about $60/month I'll take it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close