FCC Considers Deregulation of DSL 414
Phlatline_ATL writes "In an article on ArsTechnica, they explore the FCC's current consideration to reclassify DSL as an information service and as such would no longer require the telcos to lease out their lines. This seems like it would effectively make the telcos the exclusive DSL broadband providers." From the article: " So after six months to a year it would be goodbye Earthlink and Speakeasy, hello SBC DSL monopoly (in the case of Chicago, where I live). So the telcos would get what they want, which is no competition while the consumers get screwed. But it's perfectly logical under the FCC's definition of broadband competition, where they want cable to compete with DSL--and hopefully IP over power lines and WiMax down the road."
Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not exactly as if DSL has been a "competitor" by any means in any area I have lived in. Its distance requirements, slow speeds, and typical poor telco customer service has always lagged behind services offered by Cable. This is speaking only from my limited experience with four different DSL providers and two cable providers so obviously YMMV.
When I first got DSL in the summer of 1998 from Epix/Commonwealth in PA it was 640/160 and remained that until 2003 (IIRC, I wasn't living at home anymore) at which time they bumped the service to 1.5/384 to "compete" with Adelphia cable. Five years stuck at half the speeds? Problem was that there was NO competition because Adelphia was only broadband downstream and analog upstream in many areas for quite some time.
Out at college we got DSL in the fall of 1999 when we moved into an apartment. Verizon offered the lines and we took up the local freenet ISP as they were cheap. They were offering 768/128 on overcooked DSLAM racks (two racks per T1 instead of one rack per T1 like it was supposed to be) and speeds were consistently in the 40kB/s range. No one would take blame and would always finger point at the other guy (it's the ISP's fault, no it's Verizon's fault!)
Roadrunner came to town in the fall of 2000 and we dropped DSL quickly. While our latency in online gaming went up so did our download speeds. At first it was a bit over 1.5mbs but quickly went up to 3mbs. There was no finger pointing as RR handled both the ISP and the line. Was it good? Certainly for me it was. Faster speeds, less downtime, and no finger pointing. Comcast was smooth in MN but working for them in OH I knew that there could be serious issues (depending on your location) with speeds, intermittent bloc-sync, etc. 1.5mbs and then 3.0mbs w/o any real problems. Problem here was DSL wasn't even available and if it was, it was only 640/128 for more money...
My idea of DSL being competitive changed only slightly when I moved in August of 2004 to a house that offered Charter (no servers w/blocked ports) and DSL (Frontier and ISP choice). I went with Frontier and Visi (local kick ass ISP that allows servers). For once in my DSL using life I am happy w/the speeds (currently 3712/448) and the service. Visi handles everything for me so I just contact one point. I would be *extremely* upset if I had to go back to Frontier as they don't allow online bill pay, aren't very nice on customer support, and are likely not as knowledgeable as Visi's guys. Charter, charging $39.99/mo for the Internet (I think it was only $11 for CATV making it a total of $52) was a ton less money than Visi/Frontier at over $60 (requiring me to have a voice line and the $25/mo ISP charge). For most the price alone is a no brainer. For me, because of the server issue, the couple extra bucks is worth it.
So in all those years Cable hasn't improved all that much and neither has regulated DSL. So where's the competition driving faster speeds? How will deregulating DSL do anything?
It's sometimes better for the customer to use the same line and ISP and it's sometimes better to use the ISP different from the line, but it's *always* better to give the customer a choice.
So, the FCC is going to "do us a favor" and push for businesses to continue to fuck their customers over? Freedom to choose is always a better option to than freedom for businesses to do what they want... They have proven time and time again that they don't have competition as they already charge astronomical rates for the lines. They probably can make more money by finger pointing and less staffed CSRs for their own ISP. What incentives do they have to move to high capacity lines if the only other option is Cable? None. Especially when it's in the best interests of the Cable company to keep their available down
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:5, Insightful)
McLeod has Fiber running 150 feet from my house along County Rd 46. I don't have access to those lines and they are likely sharing the "public space".
So why are they being treated differently? If we are going to regulate/deregulate due to public space I want access to that Fiber.
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Informative)
So why are they being treated differently? If we are going to regulate/deregulate due to public space I want access to that Fiber.
The EU regulations, which are pretty sane, have a simple distinction. Run a network open to the public and you get regulated, but you get unparalleled access to public lands. Run a private network and you're at the mercy of local go
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Double standards are part of having a shitty government. They will say, "You want to build here? Ok, we'll give each of these people $5,000 to 'git." to a big developer. If you're a startup or some average citizen, they'll say something like, "And make all those people move out? It would cost so much to fairly compensate them, and they would be resistant to moving! Those houses and folks are old, let them be."
Consequently, if I said someone was violating my copyright for a song, I
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you wanted to come in and run your own lines, they'd probably let you. Just pay the same everyone else pays.
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:2)
It's amazing though, it depends on where you live, what service you will get.
Until recently, we had verizon DSL, but it was restrictive, hard to operate the included router, slow, and was very very very prone to disconnects. It would frequently go down for hours at a time. Verizon's solution was to "power down all computer, powerdown the DSL, and power everything back up" which wouldn't always work. and it was a pain to power down 8 co
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Interesting)
It might not make much difference, but at least the attempt would have been made...
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC just ruled FOR the deregulation of DSL. [reuters.co.uk] Takes affect in 270 days.
I work for a small ISP in Fairfax, VA and this move puts our business in immediate jeopardy. My company is part of a lobbying group called the Washington Bureau of ISP Advocacy (WBIA). There are tons of useful links on their website such as how to contact your local senators and how to contact the FCC directly.
http://www.wbia.us/ [www.wbia.us]
Please visit and write your local and federal represenatives and tell them that you want the fr
Re:Benefits of this? YMMV. (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, but Verizon flatly refuses to provide DSL service of any kind to this ar
Re:How soon we all forget (Score:3, Informative)
I worked in the wholesale DSL service & repair department of BellSouth with: access to about 100 Nortel Shasta BSN5000 switches; 15,000 Alcatel DSLAMs; 30 Sun AMS (Alcatel Management System) servers; control of all BellSouth's ATM data switches; complete end-to-end user-to-NSP control of 1.5 million ATM circuits, access to every system the company had that affected service in any way (some up to 30 years old), authority to dispatch any kind of tec
I've been (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not the cheapest, but their staff is the most knowledgable I have seen, and they're definately the most Linux-friendly.
The more people that switch away from SBC the more money the competition has to fight this stuff.
Re:I've been (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I've been (Score:2, Interesting)
Their support folks actually know what they are doing, and are actually knowledgable about Linux/BSD/etc in my experience.
Re:I've been (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've been (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what he means - when you tell them that you checked out the problem from your end with (insert your favorite Linux network tool here) and got result Foo, they will say "That's cool, we'll check Bar and..." ta-daaaa, they'll have you up and going. Or at least that's been m
Re:I've been (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, they have eminently reasonable policies. You are allowed to use your DSL connection as a full and proper connection to the internet -- they have no arbitrary restrictions on services you can run. It's not a download-only pipe like the Telco and cable companies want to sell you. They do their best to support you running any OS you want and the techs I've spoken with are actually sharp enough to help you outside of a script. Not only that, but they have some authority to do what it takes to get the job done. All the while, you have access to the communications logs between the Speakeasy techs and the local telco and other parties involved in providing the line.
The existence of a company like this, IMO, indicates that there is demand for services the telcos are unwilling or unable to provide. They footed part of the bill to run the wires to your house, so they should get some return. That's why Speakeasy *rents* the line from them and adds their markup on top. There's no reason that the telco needs to bundle ISP services with the telco line. If I think the telco has a good pipe but offers crappy ISP service, it makes sense that I can opt out of their ISP offerings. The architecture is already in place to let me do this.
Furthermore, the telcos did not foot the entire bill for running the wires. Government assistance and tax dollars helped set up the network. They're part of the public infrastructure and they knew that when they got in the business. They therefore have responsibilities not only to their shareholders, but to the society that they bargained with to get their business in the firstplace.
Re:I've been (Score:3, Funny)
(Happy customer for years)
Re:I've been (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to comment on this since I happen to be a tech for a major DSL provider. (COUGH! Shit Bell Corp) I know more than to speak off of a script. We are forced to read off scripts, and deviation is frowned upon. I actually work for an outsourcing company that contracts with SBC. We have agents in and outside of the US. There is much grumbling and consternation due to these scripts, much of the time we feel like our ha
Re:I've been (Score:2, Interesting)
As you have said, they aren't the cheapest out there, but I don't mind paying a higher price for the service speeds I get and the consistently good support I get from them. I have only needed to call them twice, both were for the same incident of my line was down, which as it turns out wasn't completely their fault.
The providers apparently are given an out of date da
Re:I've been (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've been (Score:2)
Anyway, when I moved I happened to be close enough to the CO to get DSL. After
Another Speakeasy Customer (Score:2)
Speakeasy outshines any service provider of any type I have ever dealt with. They are the standard by which all customer service operations should be measured.
No need for PPoE, a static IP, no need for telephone service, a usage policy that doesn't get in my way and no need to waste my life with incompetent and unhelpful service techs.
If you're not using Speakeasy for your Internet service but have the option to, then you are a moron.
W
Re:I've been (Score:3, Interesting)
Confusion About Capitalism (Score:2)
Re:Confusion About Capitalism (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Confusion About Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately now the government regulates as lobbied and not necessarily as needed. What is THIS model called?
Re:Confusion About Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Even now, I found it backwards and expensive here. I went to the UK recently (yes, I had to ensure my N. American GSM phone worked outside N. America because GSM here is on different frequencies here to everywhere else. GRRRRR!) and picked up a SIM card for a local pay-as-go account. They billed by the second instead of minute, and when I used up all my time, I could still receive incoming calls. Nice. Oh, it took me less than two minutes to get it all hooked up in the Post Office across the road from King's Cross railway station in London.
A couple of weeks later I went to California and tried to do the same. It took them more 45 minutes to set me up on Cingular. And then USD$10 didn't even last me a week of very light usage. What a rip-off. I used a third of that with heavier usage in the UK. I think billing by the second versus minute is one of the biggest issues.
Anyway, long gripe about a pet issue. The point is, the market often needs to be regulated in some way for the best all round results.
Re:Confusion About Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Deregulation can potentially improve some of these services (provided it is done in a careful and balanced way) by de-integrating the actual monopoly from the elements sold on top of it. In phones, that would mean that one market is maintaining and selling physical phone lines (this one being a natural monopoly and hence tightly regulated to ensure non-discriminatory access), and another is selling voice and data services on these lines. The dergulation of the voice and data services market is what can help - deregulation of the wires and poles market is a disaster in the offing.
This proposal is the worst of both worlds - the telcos are allowed to keep their monopoly in the wires and poles market, as well as their vertical integration, but are having all markets deregulated. Look for rampant abuse, as well as distinct lack of competion or innovation.
Re:Confusion About Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, you're correct, the problem which will be created by this is that the telcos who own the lines will be able to destroy all competition and then pillage their customers. If people think that Verizon DSL is bad now, wait until they don't have to compete at all.
While I don't think it will ever happen, what I would like to see is for the control of the lines and providing a service on them to be
To clarify... (Score:2)
FIOS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FIOS (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't
Thats what they deserve.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats what they deserve.. (Score:2)
Nope, it is clear they they do not have access to a war chest built by fleecing the public via "regulation" for several decades.
When you are talking deep pockets, they do not get deeper then the ILECs. These guys are huge, and they own most congress critters.
Universal internet access (Score:3, Insightful)
The current problem is that the vastness of America means that private companies don't find it cost effective to hook up Ma and Pa Kent out in the sticks. But under a government system, those people would get the service.
A lot of people don't want to pay for that, I'm sure. However, if you consider that the reason you have your broadband is because it just happens that you are lucky enough to live in a densely populated area. People who run farms and are otherwise far away from the crowds of cities simply can't generate enough demand to make it worth the broadband companies' while to hook them up.
This deregulation is the opposite direction that the FCC should be taking. There are certain things that the government ought to provide, or ought to subsidize in large amounts, and one subset of those is basic utilities. The Internet is one of the utilities that will be key in the future of our country. It makes sense that we get a jump on it now and wire (figuratively speaking. Wireless would work as well) the whole country up.
Re:Universal internet access (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't even close. We could have fibered every home and business in the US ten years ago at a fraction of what we have paid for "competitive" private business to do the pitiful job they do know. Capped uploads
Re:Universal internet access (Score:2)
No kidding. It's enough having to pay "Universal service" (read: tax on everyone so rednecks can get landlines in swamps). The continuous argument there is 911 - but you can't make the same argument for broadband.
No thanks, I'm fine at least having the little competition there is between cable and DSL, without the gov screwing it up like they do practically everything else.
Re:Universal internet access (Score:2)
Hopefully? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if their hope extends to hoping that broadband-over-power-lines magically doesn't spam the radio spectrum with interference. Last we heard, it did...
Re:Hopefully? (Score:2)
Err wait, that's competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this what competition now is?
Re:Err wait, that's competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that like saying only one company is allowed to make pencils, and another to make pens, and those two companies will compete? They fight with the marker company and the crayon company too?
Bad analogy. Pens and pencils and markers and crayons do similar things but not the same thing. Meanwhile, DSL and cable, from the (non-geek) customer's perspective, do the same thing. Therefore, from a market standpoint, they are direct competitors - they are both simply broadband services.
Would it be nic
IP over power lines (Score:2)
I've heard IP over power lines for local bandwidth delivery described as "Internet Fools Gold." Its an apt description -- so far everyone who has put money into it has lost their investment. Further, anyone with a basic understanding of radio should understand that a long unshielded wire is also known as an antenna. IP over power lines is fated to deliver unlawful "harmful interference" everywhere its attempted.
Telco's killed themselves. (Score:2)
Now they cry foul when someone wants to use their line for something other than a dialup modem.
I wish our government would get a backbone and do things like they did in South Korea. They went from barely any broadband to broadband everywhere in less than 10 years.
Re:Telco's killed themselves. (Score:2)
Deregulation never works (Score:2, Interesting)
Deregulation never works? Telecom worked... (Score:2)
Re:Deregulation never works? Telecom worked... (Score:2)
Re:Deregulation never works (Score:3, Insightful)
Your cable bill has tripled? Are you getting more channels than you used to? Why don't you switch to satellite if you're unhappy? Or, wait a couple of years for the telephone company to start providing TV.
The Savings and Loan crash was mainly because the federal government wasn't charging enough for the FSLIC insurance -- normally you pay more for insurance on high-risk activities.
The old airlines have been in trouble because they're having trouble comp
Re:Deregulation never works (Score:2)
In the UK, we have a pretty well-regulated telecoms sector, and I for one am happy about it. I have over 50 DSL ISPs to choose from, and there's a decent amount of competition.
Re:Deregulation never works (Score:2)
Nobody actually wants to buy DSL service -- they want to buy internet service. DSL and cable modems are competitors and are thus in the same market.
A good test of whether you have the market definition right is to assume that there was only one provider of all the goods in the market. If that provider was able to set the price whereever it wanted, then you probably have the right market definition.
DSL service does not
We're in a Catastrophic Positive FeedBack Loop (Score:2)
Congress knows exactly what it is doing, and every congressperson probably understands those consiquences perfectly.
You erroneously assume your "representative" gives a hoot about you, the increast costs you bear, or the inherent unfairness and inaccessiblity of a monopoly marketplace.
They don't. The care fa
Re:Deregulation never works (Score:2)
For example, deregulation of the airline industry sped the commoditization of airfare. It was done a little carelessly (hence the lack of preparation for a commoditized market), though not as badly as the energy deregulation debacle in California. Any change in the regulatory landscape always present opportun
Unfairness (Score:2)
Capitalism isn't just about consumers, it's also about businesses. Telco's do have competition from cable and soon to be/hopefully wimax.
Remeber, the who point of capitalism is that if
Re:Unfairness (Score:2)
Right now you have the cable companies with the fast lines but no servers allowed at home and the dsl companies with slower speeds that can increase and host servers if you switch to a business-level dsl. that's a duopoly and its not real competition.
Re:Unfairness (Score:2)
And business is about making money, and fuck the customer oh sorry the consumer, right?
Re:Unfairness (Score:2)
Changing laws in the middle of the game isn't great, that's true. But that just makes it all the worse if DSL should be changed back to being more heavily regulated at some point in the future, but the FCC still decides to deregulate it now. DSL is a natural monopoly. DSL line owners should be forced to share [wikipedia.org]. Period.
Re:Unfairness (Score:2)
Taxpayer's dollars.
some other company will come along and find a way to provide the same or better service for a lower price
If only this were the case. Any other company that wants to compete will find it difficult if not impossible to have access to the public rights-of-way in order to lay their own infrastructure. That is the reason that these regulations were originally put in place: an attempt to level the playing field, and make
Re:Unfairness (Score:5, Insightful)
No company is going to be able to install the nationwide infrastructure that the telcos have -- it would be a multi-trillion-dollar investment if it was even possible given the amount of disruption to everyday life (digging up streets, etc.) that would be required. It was built piece by piece during the monopoly era, funded by a combination of tax money and monopoly profits, over a period of 90 years. The only way to participate in the DSL market is through the existing infrastructure.
To anyone who thinks Bell Telephone was a benign monopoly, well, you're wrong. I remember all too well the days when you had one choice of long distance carrier -- AT&T -- and you paid whatever they felt like charging. I remember when a 3-minute call to a town 15 miles away cost $1.63 (my parents made sure I'd remember). I remember when you were legally prohibited from owning a telephone; you had to rent them from the phone company, and since they had a monopoly there, too, they had no reason to offer anything more than desk, wall, and "princess" styles, and a handful of colors (about 5), so they didn't. I remember when long distance calls were something you made on special occasions, birthdays and holidays, not how you chatted with your friends for hours. I remember when they required you to get permission before connecting so much as an answering machine, and argued that allowing people to plug in their own hardware would cause the entire national phone network to collapse. (funny, it's still there) The Bell monopoly was never benevolent.
It is just mind-blowing that the federal government is redefining "competition" as "closing down multiple profitable companies competing in a given market and turning that market over to a single monopoly."
At least they're consistent (Score:3, Informative)
The real problem here is that there's not a whole lot of in-between: either you're an information service and barely regulated, or you're a telecommunications service and heavily regulated. To me, the scariest thing about the 'information service' classification is that it allows the carrier to decide what to carry and how to do it.
For example, your cable company starts offering a VoIP service -- what's to keep it from degrading Vonage's VoIP service? What about when they degrade IP video feeds that compete with their own pay-per-view services?
Antitrust law can take care of some of this problem, but it's a hard case to make.
Regulate cable companies (Score:2)
Right now my DSL is $60.00 a month for 6000/768 and it comes with a static ip.
The FCC should start regulating the cable companies and stop worrying about the dsl companies.
Obligatory 'me too' post... (Score:2)
My ISP also gives me a static IP, has support guys who understand what I mean when I ask for a reverse DNS entry and doesn't care if I run a server as long as I don't exceed their rather generous bandwidth limit and they don't have to support the box.
Wonder how many of these options I'll have available when the
Local ISPs would die (Score:2)
Sadly, if Qwest is no longer forced to cooperate with ISPs, my account will simply be closed and I'll be forc
Screw you guys! I'm moving to Canada! (Score:2)
I hate SBC (Score:2)
1) I get to pay the switching charge sin
Deregulation and Competition (Score:2)
Yeah... right. That really happened. Is this then the deregulation of deregulation? It seems that this time the deregulation will reestablish the monopolies, but without government regulation. At least before AT&T was broken up, there was some regulation, and they couldn't gouge people TOO much.
I guess I'll just continue usi
Level the playing ground (Score:2)
Change things one way or the other, but regulate or don't regulate both DSL and cable the same way!
Telcos like third parties (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Telcos like third parties (Score:2)
Re:Telcos like third parties (Score:2)
Not As Bad As It Looks (Score:5, Informative)
As a Speakeasy customer who relies on their static to get work done, I was greatly alarmed by this article on Ars when it was posted yesterday. So, I did a little digging, and found this article [com.com]. From it, I learned that the FCC is now only considering dropping the requirements that carriers must resell their finished DSL services, not the actual CLECs that rent the lines and have phsyical equipment in COs such as Covad. The following quote from the article illisutrates their evolving position:
Since Speakeasy resells Covad services (or at least they do in my case), Speakeasy isn't going anywhere. Granted, no agreement has been met yet, but it appears that a block of the FCC Commissioners is looking out for us. It is a bit disturbing to FCC mucking with these rules in anyway. It is clear that they don't understand the degree of reliance folks have on these services for their livelihoods.
there's no good solution (Score:2)
It's nice to have this as an option, but it really doesn't encourage innovation in the way that free markets are intended to. Having a lot of resellers working off the same network has not made upgrades to that network happen any faster, and may in fa
What about Municipal WiFi? (Score:2, Interesting)
Rural America gets further screwed (Score:5, Informative)
I grew up and my parents still live in a small town (~1200 people) in northeast Ohio. Broadband cable became available from Adelphia - the only cable provider in the area - about 4 years ago, and the bargain price of $59.95/mo w/o cable TV. I convinced my folks to try it...it was only slightly more than paying for a second phone line and dial up. It was an improvement, but just barely. Terrible uptimes, slow speeds (lucky if a download broke 35kb/s), and other crap...but still not dial up.
A couple of years ago, SBC took over the local telco, upgraded the equipment, and offered DSL to those lucky enough to live in town. 1.5m/512k service for $30 a month. I got my parents switched over and the difference is astounding. They're currently getting 3.0m/768k service for $26.95. I thought, "WOW! Broadband has become cheap, widely available, and fast!"
Not so. I am heading back to college this fall to begin studying law. The local population near the school is about 10x the size of my home town, so i figured they had to have good broadband, eh? I called the cable company. They don't service my street. Ok. I called the telco. After initially telling me I couldn't get DSL, they called me back to say that I could, in fact, but that they had to manually verify the "rural" address by sending someone in a truck.
In order to get DSL, I had to subscribe to local phone service. After much haggling over packacges I didn't want, I finally got them to give me *just* local service for $17/mo. 1.5mb/128k(!) will be $50/mo more; effectively, $67/mo for crappy broadband. I'm being bamboozled.
After I had signed up for a one year commitment with the Telco, I found out that a local ISP offered DSL for $7 less per month. The moral of the story? ANYTHING that has the potential to reduce number of options available to consumers is bad. I had another choice I didn't know about...but at least it was there.
Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
On one hand SBC has been refusing to turn up DSL in my area specifically because they've been waiting for this to happen. The hardware was in place and going through "final testing" five years ago when we first moved in. I heard this from both SBC and the town's tech guru. So if this goes through then maybe they'll finally turn us up and I can get off of dial-up.
One the other hand, do I want SBC to have more of a monopoly then they already have?
It wouldn't effect me so
Arrgrh, when will this madness end? (Score:2)
The question is: Are companies that lay telephone lines considered natural monopolies [wikipedia.org]? If they are, then they should be regulated and should be required to lease their lines to third parties. If they are not natural monopolies then they should not be regulated and they should not be required to lesae their lines.
Why is that so difficult? My theory is that people don't seem to understand that, i
They already let cable have the monopoly (Score:2)
My 2 cents (Score:2)
In the long run, though, this will hasten the implementation of W
Naked DSL Should be Requirement (Score:5, Interesting)
Utility Monoply == Good (Score:2)
The same is true of wireless. US wireless is feeble and disorganized compared to other industrial areas. Why? Because there are incentives OTHER than providing service to the customers. Vendors have "screwing your competitors" and "implementing your strategic partner's tech standard" as a non-customer-centric deliverable (eek).
Non profit utility monpolies are a good thing. As a
Why do Americans support (Score:2)
And before anyone starts talking about anti-Americanism etc, I live in this country and see these things on a daily basis. America is the country I know which has the least protection of it's people and the greatest pro
God no (Score:3, Insightful)
Exhibit A: I called them up because an installation had gone wrong and I couldn't get online. Wanted to know whose fault it was. Turned out I hadn't released the DHCP properly, and it was waiting to time out, so they reset it on their end - and then I realized I hadn't written down any mirrors for my BSD distribution I was trying to get working, and didn't have any other working computers. So they tracked down a BSD distribution site for me and gave me the URL.
Exhibit B: They have semi-supported IPv6 tunnels (in that the service is available, but is not *officially* supported - unofficially, it is supported.)
Exhibit C: They have a server-side firewall to block incoming ports that tend to be problematical. It's configurable by the end-user. Yes, I have some control over *their firewall* on their end. (One of the options is "off entirely", for the curious.)
How much of that would be preserved with Verizon? Fuck all.
(Addendum: While digging through the config to see what the exact state of IPv6 was, I just realized I can change my reverse DNS entry for my static IP. Through the web interface. With full official support. I love these guys.)
(sonic.net, for the curious.)
Re:The FCC, unnecesarily restricting freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:2)
They are profiting from it as they are charging the DSL users for the line. If anything, it should be *saving* the telcos money because they don't need to staff as many CSRs to give tech support.
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:2)
The phone company uses lines paid for by tax dollars.
The cable company, in most areas, contracts out independent contractors to run their lines or runs the lines themselves in other areas, which they then charge the customer for as an added fee or they comp as part of a "package deal".
Sounds like one is a utility, and the other is a paid service.
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I do. (Score:2)
The education I recieved and use to make a living was heavily subsidized by... your tax dollars.
This means nothing. The trade was we subsidize that infrastructure so everyone can get phone service as quickly as possible. Without the subsidies it's likely many communities would be stuck without phone service due to their small size or distance from existing infrastructure. The Bells would only expand as the market could s
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
CLEC's and other DSL providers have had since the 1996 Telecom Act to try to build a business in the face of the 800 lb gorilla.
It is silly to act like the ILEC's have been successful by building a business just like anyone else does. They haven't. They had the enormous advantage of being the only game in town for a long, long time.
What we need is structural separation.
Break each Babay Bell into two units.
One being a regulated company that owns the outside plant. It would be required to sell access to everyone equally at requlated, cost-based rates.
Take the switching and retail side of the company and put it into another, un-regulated unit. This company would buy loops from the regulated company just like every other CLEC does.
Of course this is pie in the sky.
The Baby Bell's have far too much lobbying power for this to ever happen.
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's BS from the telcos when they say if they had to compete with other companies in thr DSL space they couldn't be profitable, or would have no incentive to put in fiber. Just like any business, the cost of the infrastructure would be passed on to the consumer, regardless of the company that supplied the service. The truth is that the telcos are not interested in co
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
If cable wasn't already established along with the telephone infrastructure, we would not have cable today. They snuck in when they weren't seen as a threat. As it is, the telcos are suing governments who allow wireless setups.
http://www.muniwireless.com/archives/municipal/486 [muniwireless.com]
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:2)
Re:I don't see what's wrong... (Score:2)
[I don't see what's wrong] with allowing a company to profit from the infrastructure they have built without being forced to allow other companies to profit from it!
This poor beleagured company you're talking about used to be part of AT&T, which enjoyed a government-granted and -enforced monopoly over telecommunications in the US for over a hundred years. This is the same AT&T that forced you to lease your telephone equipment from them (remember those days?). While I agree that two wrongs