×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

310 comments

GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming (0, Troll)

Xizer (794030) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263317)

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 [tv-tokyo.co.jp] 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 [imdb.com] 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 [yhbt.mine.nu], 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 GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org]?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org]?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com]?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org], a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

ALERT: GNAA twat uncovered! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263340)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263436)

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

dde (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263321)

frist pist

First (-1, Flamebait)

genrader (563784) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263323)

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 (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263337)

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.

Other competitors? (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263387)

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? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263438)

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? (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263458)

"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? (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263669)

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 [alltel.net].

Re:First (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263486)

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 (4, Insightful)

revscat (35618) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263355)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263447)

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 (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263550)

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263644)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263686)

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.

Obligatory Response (0, Troll)

No Such Agency (136681) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263448)

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:First (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263499)

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 (1)

TheMiller (520200) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263589)

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 (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263696)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263363)

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 (1)

kcurtis (311610) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263425)

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.

True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263331)

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

First Dupe Complaint! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263332)

First Dupe Complaint!

And as if by magic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263352)


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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263377)


funny, seems like free speech has been censored here already

An unrelated note... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263353)

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 (3, Insightful)

Chazmati (214538) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263356)

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 (3, Insightful)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263371)

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 (3, Interesting)

airjrdn (681898) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263462)

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 (1)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263471)

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.

Erm... (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263687)

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:Uh oh (1)

Achra (846023) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263860)

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 (1)

WebCrapper (667046) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263444)

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

Community Co-op ISP (1)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263759)

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned that one potentially great alternative to the monopolistic broadband providers is municipal networks.

Two reasons I'm surprised: one, they're generally better than either DSL or Cable... and two, the telcos and cable companies have already made pre-emptive strikes against municipal networks across the country.

In every case, the main argument from the telcos was "we have to allow other ISPs to access our lines, why build new ones?"

So what, was this the plan?

1. Eliminate every munucipal network you can by making them illegal at the state level
2. Appeal to the feds to remove common carrier status from existing lines
3. MONOPOLY!
4. Profit!!!

Looks like we found the missing step, guys.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263807)

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.

DUPE (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263364)

Another fucking dupe...

But who paid for the POTS infrastructure? (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263367)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263393)

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? (2, Insightful)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263399)

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? (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263439)

"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? (1)

corngrower (738661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263710)

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.

Surely this leads to less competition? (5, Insightful)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263368)

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? (1)

Ruie (30480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263442)

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? (1)

hab136 (30884) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263537)

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? (1)

JDevers (83155) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263744)

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).

Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI (4, Informative)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263492)

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:Surely this leads to less competition? (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263853)


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.

Corporate America (3, Insightful)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263370)

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 (4, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263376)

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 (1)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263402)

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 (2, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263554)

California is not a foreign country.
Sounds like you haven't visited for a while.

Re:Corporate America (1)

corngrower (738661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263856)

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.

I would care but... (1)

jasohill (797697) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263372)

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 (5, Interesting)

gomaze (105798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263375)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263404)


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 (1, Informative)

darkonc (47285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263457)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263459)

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 (4, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263553)

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 (1)

gomaze (105798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263671)

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 (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263575)

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 (2, Interesting)

frizop (831236) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263707)

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.

Equal footing my ass! (1)

Rhoon (785258) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263380)

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! (1)

bnitsua (72438) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263618)

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

Larry Magid (3, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263397)

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 (1)

jht (5006) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263502)

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 (5, Informative)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263580)

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.

Oh joy! (3, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263418)

So much for market forces, eh?
Adam Smith [bcgreen.com] 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.

The real reason this happened (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263423)

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 (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263667)

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

Why was the press's initial reaction so positive? (4, Interesting)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263429)

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).

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263464)

. 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.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (1)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263551)

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].

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263695)

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.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (3, Informative)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263771)

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 (2, Insightful)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263794)

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.

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (1)

Darth_Burrito (227272) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263586)

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?

Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263791)

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!

Changes everyone's incentives (1)

blackhedd (412389) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263437)

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.

Avoiding degraded service (1)

happyEverGeek (705021) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263445)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263600)

"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 (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263678)

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.

Build more networks! (1, Interesting)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263572)

You want a better network than the telcos and cable companies provide? Build one. Roll out new FTTH. Or wireless. Or carrier pigeon [slashdot.org]. 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! (1)

syntaxglitch (889367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263650)

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! (1)

$1uck (710826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263748)

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! (2, Informative)

jyoull (512280) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263773)

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.

I'm tired of this. (1)

weavermatic (868696) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263625)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13263855)

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.

Perhaps more long-term effects (3, Interesting)

ZPO (465615) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263654)

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 (1)

spisska (796395) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263833)

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.

Interesting set of stories... (1)

solune (803114) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263817)

Coupled with this story [slashdot.org] 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 [wi-fiplanet.com] 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 (1)

BeBoxer (14448) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263827)

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 (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 8 years ago | (#13263870)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...